Concealed Carry Controversy
• October 23, 2014

It is clear and absolute. A Federal court has ruled that residents be allowed, for the first time in 40 years, to carry a concealed handgun within the confines of the District. The question at hand now is which citizens will actually be allowed to carry a gun when they venture outside the home.

The city has chosen to operate as a “may issue” jurisdiction on guns, one in which an applicant must demonstrate a specific “need” for carrying a concealed weapon. This differs from the “shall issue” rules presiding in a majority of states, where simply desiring a permit to carry a handgun is reason enough. In D.C., the “may issue” roadblocks appear to be virtually insurmountable.

To obtain a permit an applicant must prove that they face a preexisting and personal threat such as stalking or domestic abuse. A generalized fear for personal safety is not reason enough, nor is living next to a drug-house, or even being the past victim of a burglary. Additionally, the city has made the police the sole arbiters of who may and who may not carry. They claim, as the chief did recently, that only the police are best situated to “use reasonable, sound judgment in evaluating what the person articulates as a threat.”

Certainly, it makes sense to place some well thought through hoops for any applicant to jump through before letting them stuff a Glock into their waistbands, but making it almost impossible to do so is spitting in the eye of the Court. One well-trod justification for such heavy-handed restriction is the nature of the city itself. The worry is that guns in close proximity to political leaders will inevitably lead to tragedy. Another concern frequently voiced is that a licensed gun-carrying citizen can easily enter a school or political demonstration and wreak havoc. While the thought of another shooting tragedy is horrible to consider, is it likely that such a suitably unhinged person will really be terribly concerned with carefully following the permitting process?

While the very fact of fear for one’s personal safety should carry great weight in the permitting process, it doesn’t. The law’s requirement that you must have already been victimized seems a bit like closing the barn doors after the cows have left. Such logic is backwards. We are arming a citizenry of victims that may be far more likely to react impulsively and badly in a desperate situation.

As many of us did, I sat glued to the news when the Virginia Tech, Columbine, and Aurora, Co. movie theatre shootings took place. The misery, sorrow and devastation made me wonder after each event if the numbers of those killed would have been less if someone had stopped the rampaging killers by being armed, trained and ready to respond.

We live in a truly maddening time. The police do what they can, but their real job is to respond and by then, it is frequently far too late. As for me, I’ll be in line when applications for concealed-carry are taken.

As a result of a ruling by a Federal judge in July that the District – which once had the strictest gun restriction laws in the nation – violated the 2nd Amendment with its “no-carry law.” The judge ruled the law unconstitutional then stayed the execution of the ruling until October 22.

In the meantime, the D.C. Council – plainly reluctant to do so, but trying to come up with legislation that would comply with the judge’s ruling – crafted a dense and imperfect law that allowed registered gun owners to carry a weapon, but not openly display it. The law contained a set of restrictions that plainly did not sit well with the attorney for the plaintiffs of the suit. In addition to geographical restrictions on where hand guns could be carried – not near a church, public building, schools or in bars – the legislation makes gun owners who want to carry a gun in public apply to the chief of police and show a need and reason for being allowed to carry a gun, such as a viably perceived and actual threats to their safety.

Opponents don’t want such restrictions – they’ve said the no carry law violates the constitution, and gun owners should be allowed to carry guns, period.

It’s another variation on an ongoing national and local debate about guns, about the kinds of guns that can be restricted, registration, background checks, concealed carrying or not carrying, and so on. Often, but not always, these debates are sparked by mass shootings in the work place, on military posts, or at schools.

Alan Gura, the attorney for a suit against the government is not happy with the restrictions.

I can see where he might be unhappy, especially with having to provide a reason for wanting to carry a gun in public. The stated reason has always been self-defense. But defense against what or who? That’s a fundamental question, because it allows the gun owner – who is not a public safety professional – to decide when he or she feels threatened, which presents can of legal, social and cultural worms. It comes uncomfortably close to the potentially violent mischievousness of “stand your ground” laws in other jurisdictions. Do we really need more people toting guns at the many mass demonstrations that are held in this city?

Confronted with terrible mass shootings, especially those in schools, it’s fair to ask how those shootings might have been prevented. It’s fair to think that if armed citizens were in proximity, or if armed teachers at schools might have been in place, that those shootings might not have happened. It’s also fair to think that the shootings might have been prevented if gun restrictions and laws were not constantly being diluted, or allowed to die, like the Brady bill.

The council’s restrictions in responses to the judge’s orders may seem cumbersome and difficult to advocates for the right to carry and carry openly, but they should be difficult. Carrying a gun in your pocket or a holster is no light matter in terms of consequences. It ought to weigh a ton.

Gun rights advocates and NRA officials often use that tired old phrase “guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” They got it half right – most of the time, people with guns kill people.

Old Catania and New Catania
• October 17, 2014

Observing David Catania at Dumbarton House the evening of Sept. 24 during his appearance before the Citizens Association of Georgetown, I couldn’t help but think of legendary Washington Post cartoonist Herblock. After Richard Nixon won the presidency in 1968, Herblock felt charitable and gave “Tricky Dick” a clean shave. Gone was the dark stubble and grisly appearance. Herblock was giving Nixon a fresh start.

Anyone who has watched Catania over the years perched on the dais of the D.C. City Council would find the “new Catania” totally unrecognizable from the “old Catania.”

The old Catania was downright unpleasant, unlikable and unappealing. His countenance was hostile and stern, his voice snarling and snide. To top it off his entire manner reeked of hubris and condescension. This was an individual whose sole purpose seemed to be to look tough and be the prosecutor-in-residence. He always had to prove to everyone in the room that he knew everything and that everybody else was just a rube.

That modus operandi has clearly gone out the window.

Now that Catania is running for Mayor of D.C. his handlers have obviously sent him to charm school. Now, he is all sweetness and light. He never used to crack a smile. Now, he smiles frequently and even attempts to be humorous.

He is knowledgeable and totally conversant with all the issues. He laces his long answers with copious statistics and has an easy familiarity with all the relevant topics. Well-informed is his signature trait.

When asked about his opponents Bowser and Schwartz, Catania even borders on graciousness. Commenting on Bowser’s absence that night, he diplomatically called it “regrettable.”

Bowser is clearly running a “Rose Garden” strategy. She is 17 points ahead and does not want to give Catania any chance to enhance his position. The public may tire of this tactic.

Catania’s past persona was definitely a high negative. He has enough baggage already. Now the “I-like-Ike” strategy is essential, if he is to advance at all.

60 Years of the Georgetowner

It is my turn to congratulate the Georgetowner on its 60th anniversary. I have been in D.C. for 50 of those 60 years. The publication looks sharp and smart.

A few years back, I contributed a feature called “You Take the Cake.” This was a quasi-tribute to someone in the news who for some reason rankled me. I remember the first recipient was Sen. John Warner (Mr. Elizabeth Taylor) of Virginia. We tried to deliver the actual cake to his Capitol Hill office. After some security concerns, it was done. They never commented on this distinct honor. Others got it, too. None seem pleased. That’s too bad. Maybe, it needs to be revived.

I fondly remember David Roffman’s biting, perceptive editorials on the Georgetown scene and the wry, bemused look on his face. Gary Tischler has for decades provided great insight and storytelling, whatever the topic.

—–
Mark Plotkin has been writing about the mayor’s race for the Georgetowner and will be doing so until the November election. He is a political analyst and contributor to the BBC on American politics.

Letters to the Editor: the Exxon
• October 9, 2014

I read with interest your editorial, “Can We Save the Georgetown Exxon?” My reaction is simple. Georgetown would not be served well by one gasoline station.

Competition drives down prices, and gives customers options. The reality is that most people depend on their cars. If there is one gas station left in Georgetown, more people will fill up in Virginia, where prices are lower and gas stations are plentiful.

Does the city want to lose the customers and the revenue? I trust the District Council will come up with a remedy.

– John A Boffa

I was dismayed to read in the Georgetowner about the possible closing of our Exxon station.

Our family would strongly prefer it to stay open. There simply is no other convenient option to buy gas, not to mention little services like getting your oil changed or your tires topped up with air.

It is conveniences, such as access to a well-run service station, that make living in the city possible for a busy family with kids such as ours. We want to stay in the city, not flee to the burbs!

– Mary Louise Kelly & Nick Boyle

Jack Evans Report
• October 8, 2014

The Council received exciting news last week that one of the major credit rating agencies feels our city’s financial position is stronger than ever and has increased our bond rating another level — a move that will save District taxpayers millions of dollars over the next decade.

Fitch’s Ratings, one of the firms I meet with every year as Chairman of the Council’s Committee on Finance and Revenue, raised its rating of our bonds from AA- to AA. What this means is that when we issue General Obligation bonds to fund infrastructure projects or school modernizations, it will cost the District less money. Because of the work we have done over the last 15 years to bring the city out of the Control Board era, Fitch, in line with the other major ratings agencies, has continued to express confidence in our financial position and the Council’s work.

Since 1999, when I took over the Finance Committee, the city’s bond rating has improved from BB+ to AA, an 8 level increase. Additional reasons Fitch cited for the increase were solid reserve balances, well managed pension and other post-employment (OPEB) obligations, the multi-year expenditure and revenue forecasts, and proactive budget monitoring. I see improving the District’s financial position as one of my chief concerns as your councilmember. Because of this financial stewardship, I can continue to push for better, smarter and more cost-efficient city services to move the District forward.

I would also like to take a moment to congratulate The Georgetowner on its 60th anniversary of providing information, support and a constant sense of community to all of us in and around Georgetown. It’s an honor for me to be a part of its rich history by writing this column every two weeks. Because of The Georgetowner’s trusted reputation in the community and loyal readership, I always feel that this column is one of the best opportunities to share my perspective on what is happening in our community and in the District’s government with my friends, neighbors and constituents.

I am a devoted reader of The Georgetowner and have several articles from over the years hanging in my office. In 1995, the publication did a profile of me, when I was a relatively new councilmember, headlined, “Evans: Coming of Age on the City Council.” That article always reminds me of how much the city has grown in the past 20 years and how important The Georgetowner has been as a thoughtful, informative resource throughout my career on the Council.

I want to wish Sonya Bernhardt, Robert Devaney and the entire team at The Georgetowner congratulations on 60 years of publication. I look forward to continuing to read the newsmagazine for another 60 years!

Mayoral Campaign Debate
• September 25, 2014

It’s been a long time since April, when Ward 4 Councilmember Muriel Bowser, with full momentum, brushed aside incumbent Mayor Vincent Gray, and three other council members to win the Democratic Party mayoral primary handily.

In the interim, Bowser traveled heavily throughout the city at town hall events, meet-and-greets and events from Fourth of July parades to gay pride events, as well as to business association meetings, here there and everywhere, to let folks get used to her citywide presence, if not her proposals.

The powerful at-large Councilmember David Catania had, as expected, jumped into the race as an Independent just before the primary. Later in the year, former Republican Councilmember Carol Schwartz, who has run for mayor several times in the past—with big numbers for a GOP candidate in a Democratic city—also joined in the fray, dropping the GOP for Independent status.

So, what happened? You’d think with three high-profile candidates, there’d be a buzz around town, a lot of talk and debate, especially now, after Labor Day, but also before. But nothing much actually happened. It is partly because there were no debates, no candidate forums, no face-to-face meetings among the three people vying to be the next Mayor of the District of Columbia.

Bowser continues to be the dead-on favorite, and as time went by she started taking on aspects of a presumptive mayor. When a debate finally materialized last week, it came with the proviso from Bowser that she would participate in only four debates before the November election. The first debate came in the immediate aftermath of a Washington Post-NBC 4-Marist poll, which showed Bowser with a 43-percent to 26-percent lead over Catania, with Schwartz at 16 percent.

The debates remaining are a WAMU 88.5 affair at NPR headquarters, Oct. 2, 7 to 9 p.m.; an NBC4-Washington Post debate, streamed online, Oct. 15, 12:30 to 1:30 p.m.; and a Ward 8 Collaborative Forum at Anacostia High School, Oct. 16, 7 to 9 p.m.

The Post—which endorsed Bowser in the primary and will likely endorse her in the general election—also applauded the four-debate scheme in an editorial, rationalizing that live streaming on the Internet and televisions would allow more people to see the debates and participate. In short, the city could dispense with all those repetitive forums in various wards—including one in Georgetown. Those forums—and there were a lot in the primary, and there should be more for the general election—while hectic, frequent and often focused on neighborhood issues, allowed the whole city to participate in the flesh, instead of being allowed to punch in an anonymous response on the Internet.

Given that every one agrees that many people just don’t know enough about Bowser—her personality, her accomplishments and record—why not let her loose on the general public where she can not only face her opponents but also the people who will decide whether to support her or oppose her? The last debate, while often contentious, was not particularly illuminating or revealing, with the Post offering up softball questions like one on the types of transportation each candidate prefers.

It seems to us the Post should be encouraging more, rather than fewer debates. But then we know the Post has already made up its mind. Some of the rest of us have not and would like to see more of the candidates—not less.

Can We Save the Georgetown Exxon?
•

Georgetown residents have an opportunity to make their voices heard on the possible loss of another gas station — the Georgetown Exxon at Wisconsin Avenue and Q Street, NW.

The land, owned by D.C. gas station king, Joe Mamo, is up for sale. The business on that land – which is the Georgetown Exxon gas and service station – does not have the right of first refusal, as is customary with D.C. tenants. The business has no real dog in this possible departure, as it runs other service stations in D.C. and Arlington.

Here is the question: does Georgetown care enough to speak up about the loss of something as ordinary but as necessary as a service station?

Already, Key Bridge Exxon at 3601 M St., NW, is slated to be swept aside for condos. Lukoil (Georgetown Getty) at 2715 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, is also set to depart. The west side property is owned by EastBanc., Inc. (It was purchased from Mamo.) EastBanc also purchased the Lukoil property at the east entrance of Georgetown across from the Four Seasons.

If Georgetown Exxon departs, that would leave Georgetown Shell as the only gas station in Georgetown. With the loss of car repair bays at the Exxon, there would be fewer gas pumps in town. How much of a loss? An industry insider surmised that with Key Bridge Exxon (120,000 gallons monthly), Lukoil (40,000 gallons monthly) and Georgetown Exxon (40,000 gallon monthly) gone, that would leave Georgetown Shell pumping the last gas in town. That’s a lot of gas for a small corner business to pump – in fact, it cannot do it.

No deal has been inked, as far as we know. There is time to speak up and ask the District Council to get involved on behalf of Georgetowners who want Georgetown Exxon to stay. The council can find ways to help. Citizens should contact Ruth Werner at the office of Ward 2 councilmember Jack Evans by calling 202-724-8058 or emailing rwerner@dccouncil.us. (Werner asked the community to comment on this issue during a meeting of the Georgetown-Burleith Advisory Neighborhood Commission.)
Comments may also be sent to this newspaper at Editorial@Georgetowner.com.

Mayor’s Race 2014
•

Muriel Bowser had a good week. First, the poll conducted by the Washington Post showed her with a commanding lead of 17 points. The rap on her was that when she was on the same stage with David Catania she would be vastly inferior and Catania would make her look bad. I was not at the first debate at American University with the three candidates present, but the published reports and word of mouth was that Bowser more than held her own.

Let’s get back to that poll. If subsequent polls show her continuing to lead with large margins, Catania will be tagged as a loser. That will make fundraising difficult and the campaign will be demoralized. Bowser has a huge fundraising lead now with more than $1 million in the bank. Catania’s challenge is to show that he is still a contender — that he has a chance. African American voters are overwhelmingly against him. In the Post poll, he gets only 11 percent of their vote. Many thought he would do considerably better with that group.

Although the poll does not show it, I firmly believe Carol Schwartz cuts into Catania’s potential with Independents. I have not said much about her efforts in past columns. Her past week was not good at all. Her attempt at rousing her troops and demonstrating grassroots support was downright dismal. Her Freedom Plaza rally produced a miniscule crowd. In addition, she was a no-show at the D.C. statehood hearing on Capitol Hill on Sept. 15. (Both Bowser and Catania were there.)

The D.C. statehood hearing deserves some comment. If there ever was truth to the old saw making “a silk purse out of a sow’s ear,” it sure applied here.

The sponsor of the bill, Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) didn’t even push his own bill. D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton’s behavior was more appalling. She gushed over Chairman Carper and never asked him to round up the votes necessary to get the bill out of committee and onto the floor for passage. Once again, Holmes displays incumbent malfeasance.

Both Bowser and Catania sat in their seats appearing intent and interested. One of them could have distinguished themselves by emphatically saying that the hearing was a sham and charade. Taking on Norton for her pathetic role would have received some attention and demonstrated political courage. It’s too bad that both candidates passed up this golden opportunity.

At this point in the campaign, the traditional voting patterns are holding true.

Mark Plotkin has been writing about the mayor’s race for the Georgetowner and will be doing so until the November election. He is a political analyst and contributor to BBC on American politics.

Jack Evans Report
• September 24, 2014

It’s been an exciting season for our hometown baseball team. What had seemed inevitable for the past month finally came to fruition last week, when the Washington Nationals clinched the National League East Division title and a spot in the Major League Baseball playoffs. After a one year absence from the playoffs, the Nats are back and looking better than ever.

First year manager, Matt Williams, has done a fantastic job guiding the team through several injuries without missing a beat. Stephen Strasburg has been excellent as expected, but the breakout performances of third baseman Anthony Rendon and pitcher Jordan Zimmerman helped the team return to the dominant form they were in two years ago.

The excitement of the playoffs brings back the concern about Metro service for those late night games. I recently met with Richard Sarles, the General Manager of WMATA, to discuss the issue and ways we can make sure everyone can stay to enjoy the entire game and still get home easily. I’m confident that between the Washington Nationals, MLB and WMATA, we’ll be able to reach an agreement to keep the trains running late, if needed, for all of the Nats’ home playoff games.

Baseball isn’t the only thing creating exciting news in that area of town. Just last week, news came of new energy and focus for part of the Half Street project right outside the stadium. With a new owner in place, the revitalization that has come to the neighborhood, with the stadium, Yards Park, the Bullpen and other developments, is picking up steam.

The stadium continues to work out better than anticipated. The District borrowed $584 million to build the stadium and identified other sources of revenue to pay off the loan. Revenue from the stadium and these other sources has raised millions of dollars more than necessary to pay the annual debt service obligations. All contingency funds have been fully funded and excess revenue is available to pay off the bonds early.

It looks like it will be a great October in Washington, with continued success for the Capital Riverfront area of our city. I have my fingers crossed for our hometown team. Hopefully, I’ll be able to write to you in a few weeks about even more exciting developments for Washington baseball. Go Nats!

Jack Evans is the Ward 2 Councilmember, representing Georgetown since 1991.

9/11: Here We Are Again
• September 11, 2014

We are upon the 13th anniversary of 9/11, and here, it seems, we are again.

Most of us, it’s safe to say, have no trouble remembering the images from the terrible, blue-sky Tuesday morning of Sept. 11, 2001.  We clearly recall the deaths, the planes crashing into the towers in New York — and into the Pentagon, here, dark smoke lifting toward the sky, the vast confusion and shock of the day, the horrible numbers of death, bodies falling from tall buildings — and the fourth plane crashing in a small-town field in Pennsylvania.

A nurse, sitting among others watching the second tower come down on the television in the Mayflower Hotel, said, “I woke up this morning in one world, and I’ll wake up tomorrow in another.” That world is the one we live in today.
We remember the events that followed: President George W. Bush declaring war on terrorism and regimes singled out as evil, and soon after that, striking against the Taliban in Afghanistan, and in 2003 moving forces against Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, a decision and its consequences still being hotly debated today.

We remember less how much the country and world has changed in the aftermath of 9/11. We live now in the world created by al-Qaeda, 9/11 and America’s and the world’s response to that day. We live in a world of security threats and security checkpoints in official buildings and airports.  We live in a kind of lockdown, interrupted by periodic acts of terror around the world.  We live in a world of Big Brother, where telephones and emails are monitored by a huge state security network to the point where nothing is private anymore.  We live in a world of chaos in the Middle East, even as we triumphantly engineered and executed the killing of al-Qaeda leader and U.S. nemesis, Osama bin Laden.

We feel somehow diminished. We have left Iraq and will soon do so in Afghanistan. We do not feel safer, or better off or more certain of our course in the world.  The Arab Spring descended into lost chances and chaos.

Here we are again.  On Sept. 10, President Barack Obama laid out plans for battling a dark force, which emerged from a much morphed al-Qaeda group called ISIS (the Islamic State in Syria), which is now based in the blasted landscape of civil-war Syria and which controls large chunks of territory and oil in Iraq, a nation that teeters on the edge of civil war and collapse. ISIS is the most alarmingly violent and murderous group yet seen in the Middle East and among terrorist groups, which is saying something.  Beheadings of two Americans, mass executions and slaughter, an ambition to create a caliphate in the Middle East are the dark characteristics of ISIS.

It’s been suggested that President George W. Bush predicted this chaos as a result of the American pullout from Iraq. It is too bad that we didn’t have George W. Bush predicting what would happen if we invaded Iraq in the first place.

Here we are again. Even if President Obama pulls together a Gulf War-type of coalition to fight and destroy ISIS, it means we will be back in the muddy again, even without boots on the ground. We will be back in the center of the storm that began with 9/11 and is still raging with a fury we have so far not understood.

Ethics and How to Empower DC
• September 10, 2014

If my grandmother Sophie Rosenthal were alive and observing the D.C. mayoral campaign, she would say in vintage Yiddish that David Catania is trying to portray his opponent Muriel Bowser as “treif.” “Treif” simply translated is unclean.

The former Republican turned Independent Catania wants voters, especially Democrats, to make Bowser guilty by association. First, he assailed her connection with Phinis Jones and the Park Southern Apartment controversy. Jones is a Ward 8 businessman and political operative, who is under federal investigation. Catania claims that Bowser should have chaired an oversight hearing on the entire matter. She refused. A not too subtle inference is that Jones’s role as a donor and supporter stopped Bowser from performing her Council responsibilities.

Now, Bowser’s former campaign consultant and strategist Tom Lindenfeld is reported to be under federal investigation for his alleged role concerning illegal campaign funding in the 2007 Philadelphia mayor’s race. In this episode, Bowser has acted differently and swiftly. She said, “I have the highest expectations of transparency from my campaign team: Tom no longer has a role on the campaign.”
Catania knows he will have trouble bringing diehard Democrats to cast a vote for a former Republican. If he can paint Bowser in any way as “ethically challenged” or “treif,” maybe that will move them to overlook or ignore Catania’s past Republican affiliation.

What I hope both candidates would do is something that is not being done, or in my memory has never been done in a D.C. mayoral campaign: present a strategy to empower D.C. Show me how D.C. attains budget autonomy, legislative autonomy, congressional representation and, ultimately, statehood.

When is the last time you remember a candidate for mayor drop a name or two? Telling us they have met with somebody in the White House or someone in the Senate or House. I asked Bowser if she would go see Democratic senators on the Governmental Affairs and Homeland Security Committee and seek their sponsorship of the D.C. Statehood Bill. At the Ward 3 Democrats meeting, she said she would go see the “senators she knew.” She did not name the ones she knew. She should also be seeing the ones she does not know.

Catania talks about going to the New Hampshire State legislature and getting supportive resolutions. That’s irrelevant and misguided. Why doesn’t he try to convert congressional Republicans to our side? That’s where the action is.

Both major candidates don’t even know the legislative players who perpetuate our colonial and un-American status. Why aren’t they forming friendships, informing and lobbying for D.C.? The campaign is a perfect place to start.

Mark Plotkin is a political analyst and contributor to the BBC on American politics.