Editorials and Opinions

Peter Murray • 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.

Georgetowner • 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.

Georgetowner •

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.

Mark Plotkin • 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.

Georgetowner • 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

Georgetowner • 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!

Robert Devaney •

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.