Carry On Barry’s Belief for a Better D.C.
• December 5, 2014

The District of Columbia lost one of its founding fathers last week when Marion Barry, Civil Rights leader, mayor, council member, passed away at the age of 78.

During my time in D.C. and in local government, we have experienced an incredible amount of change as a city, but there has always been one constant: Marion Barry. From my earliest days in the District, I’ve always known a city with Marion Barry. I moved to Washington in September 1978 and started working as an attorney at the Securities and Exchange Commission on a Monday. The next day, Marion won the Democratic primary for the Mayor of Washington, D.C. He truly was my “Mayor for Life.”

For the last 10 years, I’ve had the office right next door to Marion. Serving on the Council together was like having an historical figure right within your reach. I had the opportunity to travel with him around the country and the world, and no matter where we were everyone always came up to him and wanted to take their picture with him. From Las Vegas to South Africa, people loved Marion Barry.

In the 35 years I knew him, he never backed down from his belief that Washington, D.C. should do more, should be more, for every person who lives here. Marion looked out for people who were down and out and he should always be remembered for that.
Most people know that Marion Barry served as Mayor of Washington, D.C. longer than anyone else in history, and everyone knows of his infamous struggles, but many people are unaware of how integral a role Marion played in the Civil Rights movement.

Marion participated in the Nashville sit-ins in 1960 as a student at Fisk University. Later that same year, he was elected the first chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, one of the most important groups of the Civil Rights movement. It was through SNCC that he first came to Washington, D.C.

During those early years in Washington, he helped to organize boycotts and peaceful demonstrations. He fought for District home rule. He went to the federal government and won funding to establish Pride, Inc., a jobs training program for unemployed black men.

Helping people find jobs became a passion for Marion, and he made it his life’s work. As mayor, he created the Mayor’s Summer Youth Employment Program, which has provided summer jobs to nearly every young Washingtonian over the last 25 years, including my triplets, and through his final days on the Council, he kept fighting for “the last, the lost, the least,” as he would say.
While Marion is gone, his belief in a better District for all residents lives on. It’s now for the rest of us to continue to make it so.
My thoughts and prayers continue to be with his wife, Cora, his son, Christopher, and the hundreds of thousands of Washingtonians who loved Marion Barry.

Jack Evans is the Ward 2 Councilmember, representing Georgetown since 1991.
• December 4, 2014

   

Taking Back Our Land
•

Council member Jack Evans appears to be gearing up for a fight to take back from the Federal Government some of the city’s most valuable assets, including many of its parks, squares, and Georgetown waterfront. In his column in the Nov. 19 Georgetowner, Evans writes of the District’s desire for a measure of self-determination: “From the Georgetown Waterfront to Franklin Square to Pennsylvania Avenue, local control of parks and roads in the District is a win-win for the District and Federal governments. The Republican Congress can shrink the size of the Federal Government, and the District can more appropriately utilize those spaces for city residents.”

The council member’s thoughts appear to be well in-line with many in the city who are frustrated by the imposed infantilization of the community at the hands of the federal government. Examples of our lack of control abound. The National Park Service controls about 637 parcels of land in the District for a total of 6,776 acres, with 425 of those parcels tiny at an acre or less. Little money or care is spent by the NPS in maintaining those spaces and they are generally desolate, empty and sad.

The city made what many now see as a deal with the devil when it ceded control of most of the Georgetown waterfront to the NPS in the 1980s. The arrangement was structured in large measure to avoid the associated maintenance costs and a real fear among some in the Council that the area would be forever lost to developers as a quick, but shortsighted way to help fill the city’s empty coffers.

The chickens have now come home to roost, and the true downside of the deal is glaringly apparent. While the NPS could become a true partner with the people of Georgetown, it appears to have its own plans and private agenda as to how to use the most valuable property in the District. We have seen recently how the federal agency is tone-deaf to local wishes, as it repeatedly bungled the waterfront for boaters from Thompson Boat Center down to Fletcher’s Boathouse. This indifference was brought to light in 2012 during the Jack’s Boathouse debacle when, despite a huge outcry by thousands of citizens, civic leaders and city political leaders, the NPS threw out long-time local operators to place Boston-based concessionaires in the spot.

The NPS’s curious indifference for local needs was detailed in a Washington Post article, headlined, “The Grand Canyon or Logan Circle? It’s all the same to the Park Service.” The Post story frames the problem as, “A bureaucratic mentality at the National Park Service that insists on applying the same regulations at the Grand Canyon and Logan Circle, without recognizing the vastly different role that parks play in urban settings.” The Post goes on to opine: “The Park Service throws up obstacles to new ideas rather than work with local communities to find solutions, even when doing so would advance the agency’s mission of preserving national resources for the enjoyment of all.” There is no argument that the District has an important national interest that surely needs consideration, but that’s not happening as well as it could be. Beyond the national concerns and politics, D.C. is the home of more than 600,000 citizens, who are in a far better position to decide, protect, promote and pay for the kind of neighborhood public spaces they deserve without having to beg for the morsels tossed from the federal government.

Perhaps we’re grasping at straws by reading too much into the few words that Evans wrote, but we’re hoping it means that getting our land back is a priority for him and the city. If that’s the case, we look forward to hearing about the next steps to make it happen.

The One and Only Marion Barry
•

He never really left the stage. And now he’s gone.

For nearly 50 years, Marion Barry was a force to be reckoned with. There were those who idolized him and saw him as their only champion. Others detested him and viewed him as an odious, destructive presence.

One thing that cannot be taken away from Barry: he was a very successful politician. He was elected mayor of the District of Columbia four times. The last time was truly amazing. He had been in prison for six months just a few years before, but came back in 1994 and reclaimed the highest office.

Even hobbled by poor health during his last days, he was still an elected official, representing Ward 8 on the District Council. He could have served there forever.

A self-proclaimed “situationist,” Barry formulated himself to fit each and every situation. In 1974, when he was first elected to the D.C. Council, he was a dashiki-clad militant activist. The at-large position required him to win citywide. Four years later, he needed to moderate his image. So he became a pinstriped politician who romanced Georgetown and Cleveland Park residents in their living rooms. He won them over and began his reign as mayor.

In 1982, Barry was supposed to face a formidable foe: former cabinet secretary and ambassador Patricia Roberts Harris. The story is told that while Harris was testing the waters for her potential run, she ventured out to Anacostia. After giving a speech, she felt quite satisfied, thinking she had connected with the crowd. She sat down. Seated next to her was Barry. He leaned over and whispered in her ear, “I’m going to kick your ass.”
And that’s exactly what he did. He cleaned her clock, winning seven of eight wards. I dare you to name his 1986 opponent.

To those who did not want D.C. to have more home rule, congressional representation and ultimately statehood, Barry was the perfect justification for saying, “No.” His personal life, the bloated government payroll and corruption by close aides and friends all combined to hold D.C. back. We, the citizens of D.C., suffered. We suffer even today.

As a person, Barry was not vindictive or mean-spirited. He once told me that there was only one person in this city he would not speak to. Barry played the race card when needed. But more than anything he was a big-city mayor in the mold of Richard J. Daley, Boss Tweed, Boss Crump and James Michael Curley. That’s the way I believe he wanted to be remembered.

Bring Justice to Ferguson, Mo.
•

Ferguson, Mo., was a warzone the night of Nov. 24, after local prosecutor Robert P. McCulloch announced that a St. Louis County grand jury decided not to indict police officer Darren Wilson in the killing of Michael Brown. The police chief called the scene, “Worse than the worst night we had in August.” Viewers tuned to cable news to see cop cars and buildings on fire, hear gunshots and tear gas canisters explode and witness heavily armed police officers marching in line like an infantry against protesters. But this occupying army (as it appeared) let the city burn.

McCulloch, seemingly the army’s leader, announced the no-indictment decision at night, giving cover to some that he should have known from past experience would incite violence. He triggered more anger by making a case for Wilson’s innocence at the press conference. It is worth asking whether McCulloch and his office intended to fan the flames of unrest or are just flat-out incompetent.

The next day, we learned that McCulloch took a hands-off approach during the entire process, essentially guaranteeing that Wilson would not be indicted. He never ordered Wilson’s arrest, and he relinquished the traditional role of the prosecution, dumping all of the evidence on the grand jury rather than presenting an argument for indictment. Hence, Wilson’s story – which contradicted those of numerous eyewitnesses in its narrative of Brown’s alleged attacks on Wilson – was not cross-examined. The grand jury was given little to no guidance.

Protesters assembled on Nov. 25 in every major American city, chanting, “Black lives matter” and “No justice, no peace” – not only because they thought Wilson should be charged for Brown’s death, but also because it became more and more clear that McCulloch gave Wilson special treatment during the grand jury process.

There is still hope for justice, though. The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division has the opportunity to bring criminal charges against Wilson and to overhaul the Ferguson Police Department’s training with regard to racial profiling and use of force. We urge the Justice Department to hasten their investigations in the hope that this will alleviate the violence and heartbreak in Ferguson. But we also insist that the Civil Rights Division expand the scope of its investigation to McCulloch and St. Louis County’s grand jury procedures.

There are still many steps that need to be taken to improve race relations and minimize police brutality in the U.S. Whether or not the Justice Department acts on Ferguson, we hope that protesters around the country continue to air their grievances peacefully and that police do not encroach on Americans’ right to assemble.

Georgetown Maxxing Out?
• November 19, 2014

In our last Georgetowner print issue, we ran a brief item about Arcteryx. In that piece we stuck to the facts, but something troubled us. Arcteryx is a high-end Canadian outdoor sporting goods retailer that is opening a new 31,000-squarefoot store at CityCenter. Georgetown was originally the favored location for the shop but was passed on because the company believed that the local clientele here simply do not have pockets deep enough to afford the luxury goods they hawk, nor could it draw in the well-heeled, if they had to be in mixed company with the likes of middle-class targeted retailers such Forever 21, DSW, or worse, discount seller T.J. Maxx.

Arcteryx didn’t work hard to hide their disdain for Georgetown. In a recent interview published in the Washington Business Journal, the company’s deal broker Edward Goldmeier of Newmark Grubb Knight Frank speaks of the company’s choice as something of a no brainer, stating, “It really aligned them much closer with what they felt were the complementary stores that would attract their customer.” As further icing on the dissing cake, Goldmeier added, “With no disrespect to T.J. Maxx, but when that starts to be the big face in Georgetown as opposed to what was originally proposed as a Bloomingdale’s, it does affect an outsider’s view of what’s going on there.”

Arcteryx’s position – at least as stated by Goldmeier – does serve a useful purpose in bringing a question that has (generally) only been quietly discussed in the open air: Is Georgetown cheapening its own brand? That argument presumes a couple of givens. First, that a brand exists. Second, that the discount retailers, which are willing and able to pay the exorbitant rents here, are somehow failing the community. And finally, that those retailers are, at best, enemies of us all by their mere existence.

Determining the right path forward, retail-wise, does demand a bit of tiptoeing. To consider Georgetown an exclusive shopping enclave of the rich, super-educated and downright powerful does seem a bit on the ugly side. The alternative to that extreme would be to allow the Georgetown retail environment to fall to the lowest common denominator, a sort of race to the bottom for the easy money. In reality, neither of these things is happening. We are not likely to turn into a giant strip mall nor are we are going to become a moat-protected castle of unfettered opulence and unseemly consumerism. We are likely to be what we’ve always been – a place that is real.

Georgetown has this keen ability to change and adapt as the world around it changes. The current of dynamism, changeability and the natural course of retail evolution are what allow our community to thrive. That’s something Arcteryx just failed to grasp. We hope the best for them as they take on the masses at CityCenter. We just ask that they remember their own words if the world changes out from under them.

Legalize Marijuana
• October 28, 2014

District residents should vote to legalize marijuana on Nov. 4. Marijuana’s prohibition has gone on for too long, flying in the face of undeniable facts about the drug, and its impact on individuals and society overall.

Alcohol is far more dangerous than marijuana. An alcohol overdose can kill while marijuana overdoses are unheard of. Alcohol use contributes to reckless, aggressive and violent behavior, including drunk driving, domestic violence and rape. Marijuana intoxication, on the other hand, has been shown to reduce the likelihood of violence of the user. Alcohol can be classified definitively as an addictive substance. Marijuana cannot.

In short, alcoholism poses a multitude of serious problems to society. Marijuana, on the other hand, affects mainly smokers, with use promoting voracious appetites for snacks and nature documentaries.

Opponents of legalization will claim that, by legalizing marijuana, the District will be endorsing the drug’s use to children. We argue the opposite. When law codifies a harmful drug like alcohol as legal and marijuana as illegal, people who have tried both drugs lose respect for the law. A loss of respect for the law cultivates more illegal behavior and, potentially, more drug use among teens.

Initiative 71 only legalizes the drug; it does not provide a regulatory framework for the substance’s sale. We urge D.C. Council to work carefully on such a framework as it has for the District’s medical marijuana program. The Council should ensure that marijuana does not fall into the hands of children, that it’s potency be strictly regulated, that drivers can be tested for being high behind the wheel and that the District collect ample tax revenue on this vice. In Colorado, Governor John Hickenlooper was initially opposed to his state’s legalization of the drug. He changed his tune when a state report came out stating that legalization lowered use, especially among teenagers, and has diverted monies that would have gone to gangs towards state coffers.

We should follow Colorado’s example and legalize marijuana.

Muriel for Mayor
• October 24, 2014

There is an often-noted lack of enthusiasm in the electorate considering the choices in the 2014 race for Mayor of the District of Columbia.

We share some of that feeling when looking at the three top candidates on the ballot, all of whom present voters with a mix of positives worthy of commendation and worrisome negatives.

In the end, after due consideration, the Georgetowner endorses the winner of the Democratic Party primary, Ward 4 Councilmember Muriel Bowser, for mayor. This is not done without some misgivings, but they outweigh both the positive qualities she would bring to the job and some of the concerns we have about her opponents.

David Catania, an Independent At-Large councilmember, gave up his powerful slot on the council to run for mayor, for which he should be commended. However, he brings with him a reputation for confrontational, high-handed tactics and arrogance in dealing with opponents, other members of the council, the media and peers. Council member Catania has said that he admits to being passionate in the pursuit of goals and issues, and that he is often “impatient.” The issue of his temperament has become increasingly prominent in the few debates that have been held. Ultimately, that disposition offsets Catania’s love for the city, his wealth of detailed ideas for improving the city and his broad, detailed policy expertise and intelligence.

Carol Schwartz, who entered the campaign as an Independent, has carved out a career as a heartfelt advocate for the city’s less fortunate, around education and labor issues, as a school board member, a long-time at large city council member and a frequent candidate for mayor. But she has been out of office for six years, a gap we feel is too large.

We have some caveats about Muriel Bowser’s candidacy, which was begun and built with the support of mentor Mayor Adrian Fenty. Like many observers of this campaign, we were put off by her pronouncement that she would participate in only four debates, which effectively cut out many wards and neighborhoods in looking at the candidates up close and personal. We also, like some of her opponents, question the depth of her legislative output.

Yet, we have also seen that she has grown in the course of her years on the council with regard to achievement and expertise. Over the course of the campaign, she has taken on a sure-footed, appealing confidence. She has shown that she can negotiate, compromise and work effectively with her peers on the council and in the wake of political scandals that wounded Mayor Vincent Gray and ousted council members Kwame Brown, Michael Brown and Harry Thomas Jr. She addressed the issue by putting forth a broad ethics reform bill which, while met with some skepticism, was a notable improvement over the system in place.

In the end, in a city in which politicians always talk about the concept of “One City,” we feel that Bowser, with her strong roots in the community (she was born and raised in D.C.) is the strongest candidate. She holds a broad appeal across the city among both black and white voters, and we admire her zeal for affordable housing and her ability to work with a broad spectrum of people, especially in a city in the midst of major changes. Bowser should be the next mayor of Washington, D.C.

The 2014 Mayor’s Race Improper Question and Several Endorsements
•

Before I begin my analysis and express my personal endorsement in the D.C. mayoral race, I have to take care of some other matters. At the recent WAMU mayoral debate, hosted with typical charm and elegant restraint by Kojo Nnamdi, one of the panelists seriously marred the event by a question that was totally irrelevant, improper and alien to the political discourse we cherish in America.

Panelist Tom Sherwood addressed his comment to all three mayoral candidates. He remarked that he had noticed that none of them had listed where they attended religious services. (This is a paraphrase.) Maybe Sherwood needs to be reminded that in this country we have separation of church and state.

In 1960, John F. Kennedy memorably said that no one who runs for president should be judged by their religion. To bring up this subject is absolutely outrageous and poisonous to the political process. The three candidates should have refused to answer the question.

Moving on to other topics: there are several contests for political office, which D.C. voters will have to make a choice.

For the first time, D.C. will have an elected attorney general. This election itself would not have taken place at all, if it were not for one individual. That individual is Paul Zuckerberg. He enhanced Home Rule by taking on the District Council and the entire political establishment by personally going to court and making sure that voters would get a vote on this office. Zuckerberg is experienced, feisty and funny. But most of all he is qualified.

We have two positions to vote on for At-Large Councilmember. One of them should go to Elissa Silverman. She is smart and sassy. Extremely well informed and a fighter for those who usually don’t have a champion, she is truly independent, un-bought and un-bossed.

Now, let’s turn to the main event.
Carol Schwartz is well known and well liked. She has served the city dutifully in the past, but I do not see the rationale for her candidacy. Many people have said that she’s doing this because she craves the attention. Her campaign talks about what she’s done, not what she is going to do.

Let me not mince words. The election of David Catania would be a catastrophe. His entire career is motivated by ego. His overriding concern is his own political advancement — devoid of principle. His temperament alone disqualifies him for this high office. There are countless examples of his behavior being ugly and abusive (even from former staff members — read the Oct. 13 Washington Post profile of him).

Being mayor requires working with people you disagree with and finding common ground. Catania is only interested in scoring points, not making progress. He is not progressive in any sense, and when he doesn’t get his way he becomes petulant and toxic. Is this what we want for our next mayor?

I sincerely wish I could summon up some degree of enthusiasm for Muriel Bowser. But I will be voting for her under the “do-no-harm” concept. She is knowledgeable and interested in the operation of government (unlike her former mentor Adrian Fenty). She is a Democrat and is of this place. Muriel Bowser was nominated because she was not Vince Gray. She will be elected because she is not David Catania. I sincerely hope she can grow in office and has the capacity to pick good and able people to serve with her.

This is Mark Plotkin’s final column about the mayor’s race for the Georgetowner. He is a political analyst and contributor to BBC on American politics.

End Traffic Enforcement That Puts Revenue Before Rights
• October 23, 2014

“One of the beauties of parking [is] it’s like the [Internal Revenue Service]. If you get a parking ticket, you are guilty until you have proven yourself innocent… That has worked well for us,” a senior city transportation official is quoted as saying in the D.C. Inspector General’s report on parking and automated traffic enforcement tickets.

The official’s attitude about the ticketing of District residents is unacceptable. But it seems to be widespread within our city government. The full report called out a lack of accountability in ticketing at three agencies: the Metropolitan Police Department, the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transportation. Parking tickets, in particular, are an almost constant threat in Georgetown, where paying through the ParkMobile app doesn’t guarantee a ticketless windshield upon return to your vehicle.

We support the enforcement of our city’s traffic and parking laws. Automated red light and speed cameras discourage reckless driving and parking enforcement makes sure locals can do business without the risk of someone taking their spot or blocking traffic. But these laws are increasingly fattening the city’s purse (parking and automated traffic tickets brought in almost $90 million to city coffers in 2013) with little to no oversight.

The report’s release has forced the relevant city departments to make changes already. For example, MPD has changed its policy so that it no longer instructs personnel to approve tickets when the license plate on the vehicle does not match Department of Motor Vehicle records. In addition, the Department of Transportation will be replacing confusing parking signs in D.C. We support these steps but urge the city government to do more.

Ward 3 Councilmember Mary Cheh has led an effort on the Council to streamline parking practices, holding two hearings on the IG report and proposing a bill that would, among other things, streamline the issuance of parking tickets and create a transportation authority to manage the city’s transit options. We urge the Council to consider not only these options, but also other measures that would bring due process and justice back to the city’s enforcement of traffic and parking laws. The government’s prioritizing of revenue over citizens’ rights needs to come to an end.