Editorials and Opinions

Gary Tischler • June 15, 2011

National politics has its attendant scandals, farces, tragedies and controversies; we give you Wiener, Schwarzenegger, Edwards, Palin and Gingrich, in various ways.

But there’s nothing quite like the permanent dark cloud that seems to have settled over the workings of the government of the District of Columbia and the early months of the administration of newly-elected mayor Vincent Gray.

No matter that the council and the mayor seem to have settled their differences over the Fiscal 2011-2012 budget, or that redistricting seems to have moved on apace, or that almost out of sight, some things are getting done on the council.

Ever since the inauguration of Gray as mayor, and of new council members and a new council chairman, the charge aired by unsuccessful mayoral candidate Sulaimon Brown that he was paid by Gray aides and promised a job in the Gray administration have cast a pall over the city. The ongoing scandal, already the subject of several council hearings, continues to periodically erupt with pronouncements by the volatile Brown, charging that “the mayor is a crook”.

When Brown showed up in dark specs recently to testify at the latest council hearing, bringing with him copies of money orders and causing a circus-like atmosphere at the hearings, it only served to remind people of the scandal, which is under investigation by various bodies, and other controversies plaguing other council members.

It never quite goes away, this dispiriting reminder of a DC government which is beholden to the federal government but wants statehood and voting rights, yet is unable to shake off the myriad controversies that are disrupting its work.

For instance, a May 23 Washington Post headline read: “ Disillusioned, some backers of D.C. mayor call for reset; It’s going to be a long four years’ one says; At meet of campaign workers, Gray apologizes to those felt sidelined.” Not so long afterward on June 7 came this: “Council told ‘mayor is a crook.’ Sulaimon Brown ties Gray to alleged payoff,” and “Officials clash with witness in hearing filled with twists and bemusement.” Two days after that, “Scandals cloud Gray’s agenda,” “D.C. Mayor Faces Media,” and “City is reliving ‘80s-era problems some say.’”

The mayor’s problems have been accompanied by numerous other squabbles: most recently, council member Harray Thomas Jr. has been accused of misusing public funds, strongly reminiscent of council chairman Kwame Brown’s problems with luxury vehicles and campaign fund issues. Meantime, tapes have emerged purporting to show Ward One Councilman Jim Graham’s chief of staff—who resigned last year over bribery charges — taking bribes.

Everywhere you go, the mayors’ critics say that Gray is creating an atmosphere similar to the one that existed during Mayor Marion Barry’s last two terms—one in which he ended up in jail, the other which resulted in the district being put under a control board.

While some suggest that Brown is beginning to sound credible, it’s hard to believe that what he says happened actually happened. You have to ask why anyone would pay Brown for something he was already doing, which was disrupting candidate forums with blistering attacks on Fenty and telling attendees to vote for Gray if not for him. Yet, the bottom line right now is two-fold: one of Gray’s aides whom Brown implicated in the transfer of moneys refuses to testify on Fifth Amendment grounds, and Brown did actually get a $100,000 job in the administration from which he was fired. “He got the job,” is a frequent refrain and conversation stopper when you start to talk to people about the situation in the district.

The mayor, who has already fired his chief of staff (and not replaced her), has so far been extremely reluctant to talk about the scandal surrounding him, preferring to talk about budget issues, redistricting and other matters.

The silence appears strange and damaging to some. It’s hard to imagine that the mayor would have a direct hand in any of the charges leveled against him. His reputation for integrity, until recent charges, seemed strong. But silence lets Sulaimon Brown go everywhere and say “The Mayor is a crook,” without the mayor saying anything at all. It might behoove the mayor not so much to answer the charges, per se, but to talk at length about what’s going on, what happened and what didn’t happen in terms of what he knows, his feelings and plan of action. It might be time for him to get out in front of the talk and the buzzing, even though one official said “that train’s left the station.”

Gray’s dream for One City is just that now: a figment, because the city is once again as divided as it has ever been along racial and political lines. It’s pretty clear that with the mayoral scandal on top of all the other problems of members of the council—that the council itself is in disarray.

That’s no way to run a city: a mayor under a cloud, a city council distracted by controversy. Somebody on the council, or Mr. Mayor, won’t you please speak up and take the bull by the horns. Somebody, somebody, say something.

Georgetowner • June 13, 2011

Redistricting is a difficult job and this year has been no exception. I want to acknowledge the efforts of my fellow subcommittee members, Councilmembers Michael Brown and Phil Mendelson, as well as the other members of the Council who participated in the process. Most of all, I want to thank the residents who reached out to us by phone and email, as well as by testifying at our three public hearings and speaking at the many community meetings we attended.

The 2011 Census reported the District’s overall population to be 601,723 people. When divided equally among the eight Wards, this results in an average population of 75,215 residents per Ward. Federal law allows a deviation in Ward population of plus or minus 5 percent, which gave us a range of 71,455 – 78,976 residents within which to work. The District’s population increased by 29,664, or 5.2 percent, between 2000 and 2010. It is worth noting that this increase nearly returns the District to its 1990 census population of 606,900 people.

The 2010 Census showed that compared to 2000, Wards 1 through 7 gained population, while Ward 8 lost 215 residents, or 0.3 percent of its population. After the 2010 Census, we learned that Ward 2 exceeded the allowable population range by 939 people, while Ward 7 was below the allowable minimum by 386 residents and Ward 8 was below by 742. All the other Wards remained within the required population range.

The Subcommittee on Redistricting released an initial draft redistricting plan last week and followed that with an additional subcommittee hearing, our third since the process began, which lasted until after 1:00am. In response to this hearing, we were able to issue a revised plan that accommodated a number of the concerns raised. Most notably for Ward 2, we were able to reunite the Penn Quarter neighborhood while also further reuniting the Shaw neighborhood in Ward 6 and restoring the “chimney” toward the northeast corner of Shaw that had been slated to return to Ward 5, which was originally an attempt to reunite a census tract.

The most significant change in the revised plan was to keep many residents of the eastern part of Capitol Hill in Ward 6, pursuant their wishes. The full Council voted overwhelmingly in favor of the revised plan at first reading, with a 12-1 vote, which speaks to the fact that we did the best we could on the subcommittee in balancing competing interests as we redrew the Ward boundaries. A final vote on the Ward redistricting will take place on June 21.

The final step in redistricting is to review the Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) and Single Member District (SMD) boundary lines, which we will begin after the second vote on the redistricting plan. Please contact my office if you would like to be involved in the Ward 2 task force or wish to weigh in on any potential changes – I welcome your input.

Gary Tischler • June 8, 2011

I imagine that every Memorial Day, especially here in Washington, where we live in the same moonlight and sunshine that falls on Arlington National Cemetery, is the same.

The President comes to say the right things, to lay wreaths, to honor our soldiers. There is a parade, there are speeches, and the Rolling Thunder roars into town. Grizzled Viet Nam vets come again to the memorial wall, tattooed, their wives and families with them, and still hold their breaths at the sight of a familiar name among the 55,000 engraved in the marble.

You can imagine this happening in towns small and large, any town worthy of a city hall and a statue, all over America. This memorializing, this home stand before the long hot summer, accompanied by furling flags, salutes, picnics, noisy cars and furniture sales. These are the customs of our land.

And we are at war, our soldiers in harm’s way, as they put it. The harm now is from roadside bombs, suicide bombers, rifle and mortar fire, the random explosions of fire from across the way.

And since 1983 or so, every Memorial Day is a little different, the picnic smoke, the music of taps, the memories of other years, because the list of the fallen grows every day.

In a commendable service, The Washington Post began an occasional section called “Faces of the Fallen,” which lists the soldiers with their pictures and particulars, and it always runs on Memorial Day. And so the day is different, as the war in Iraq rolls on and continues to do so. These faces are immediate, not terribly long gone, fallen not on the wayside but in places they never imagined to be growing up.

They have military faces in the way military photographs and IDs are taken, dogtags with eyes and ears and a stare. They are from all over, representative of the way we are now, so much more diverse than before, with many Hispanic names among the dead, and the faces and names of women, too.

Looking at the faces, the clichés gurgle up like water in a desert, a kind of relief. To name them is to create an echo: Senft and Locht and Pape, and Ortiz and Holder and Gassen and Harris, Middleton and Buenagua, Ramsey and Robinson, Flannery and Chihuahua, Carver and Carroll, Luff and Finch Lancaster and Cruz and Crouse, Simonetta and Villacis Gandy and Jones.

And to friends, they are Jason and James, Kelly and Ethan, Chad and Austin, Devon and Ardenjoseph, Austin and Buddy, Sean and Amy and Omar and Conrado.

And they come from places that in some other life we all imagined living in America, from Conway, NC, from Marina, CA, from Hutto, TX, from Hagerstown, MD, from Redwood City, from West Palm Beach, from Pittsburgh, from Princeton, from Tell City Indiana, from Derry New Hampshire and Akron Ohio.

And they died, were “killed while conducting combat operations,” from makeshift bombs at the hands of suicide bombers and other service-related causes.

And they are the reason why all the Memorial Days of our day are different.

Information and names are taken from the Washington Post’s “Faces of the Fallen” section, which ran on Memorial Day, May 30, 2011.

Georgetowner • June 2, 2011

They argued about it some and they fussed about it some, but in the end the much anticipated city council debate over Mayor Vincent Gray’s controversial proposal to raise the DC income tax on earners over $200,000 didn’t really have much of a chance.

Ward 2 City Councilman Jack Evans had said as much a couple of weeks ago, when he described the proposal as “dead” and “not going to happen,” along with several other parts of the mayor’s budget proposal that attempted to bridge an estimated $300 million budget gap for the Fiscal Budget 2011-2012.

While some new tax proposals were part of the 2011-2012 budgets recently, given a preliminary approval by the city council, the income tax raise 0.4 percentage increase (which was expected to raise an additional $18.7 million) did not survive the vote.

With Council Chairman Kwame Brown opposed to the measure along with most of the rest of the council, the council approved the budget minus the income tax raise. Still, several council members—at large councilmen Phil Mendelson and Michael Brown among them—noted that it seemed unfair that a resident making $40,000 was taxed at the same rate as someone making over $200,000. Evans, who voted against the increase, agreed that the council should address the imbalance of the individual rates at some future date.

The council also dropped the mayor’s proposal to initiate a tax on theater tickets, which was heavily lobbied against by local performance arts groups, including the Helen Hayes Awards.

While some of the debate became a little intense, there seemed to be less of a sense of urgency on the budget and its shortfall, with much talk of expected additional revenues that were not specifically identified.

Additional taxes—instead of the income tax increase—were expected to restore funds for homeless shelters, affordable houses and other social services, which had been scheduled for big hits under Mayor Gray’s budget proposals. The vote hearing was heavily attended by housing and homeless advocated and activists from all over the city.

Chairman Brown appeared to be a key figure in the debates. Not only did he vote against the income tax hike and the theater tax hike, but proposed other tax measures to offset the cuts, including a complicated, obscure but very real plan to tax non-D.C. municipal bond. Those are bonds for other jurisdictions held as income by DC residents, including seniors living on fixed incomes. The proposals appeared confusing to many in attendance, and its passage remains in doubt.

A proposal to tax drivers using parking garages appears to remain in the budget, on which the council will hold a final vote

Noticeable in the running commentary on individual issues during the morning discussion of the debate was the profuse praise for Chairman Brown, who has been seen by many observers in the city as being in a weakened leadership position. Agree or disagree, almost every council member praised Brown for his work and effort on the budget and working with the council as a whole and individual members.

Some of the social programs for which funds were found were in Ward 2, which Evans represents. “I worked closely with the Washington Interfaith Network, and fought hard for preservation of the Housing Protection Trust Fund, the Community Benefits Fund and the Neighborhood Investment Fund, “ Evans said. “I am grateful to my Council colleagues for recognizing their importance to my Ward and the city.”

The budget at $11 billion plus, is the largest in the city’s history.

Michael Brown, Councilman at large, said, “I understand the need to balance the budget. But I still feel that when there is considerable pain felt throughout the city because of the economy and the deficit, then it should be shared equally. And the tax rates are not shared equally. It just doesn’t seem right that someone, say, who makes $400,000, should only pay the same rate as someone making $40,000.”

Several council members questioned the bond taxes. Ward One Councilman Jim Graham, who advocated strongly for not cutting programs for “those who have the least,” including the homeless, said that such legislation was passed in other years but never implemented, “So I don’t see any point in doing it again.”

Phil Mendelson also questioned the feasibility of implementing such a tax. “Where’s the infrastructure to do that?” he said. “However, I’m glad we chose to defend and support critical services for the homeless and those in need.” Evans also questioned the tax on the interest on municipal bonds.

Gary Tischler • March 17, 2011

Just around three months into his four-year terms, District of Columbia Mayor Vincent Gray is in trouble. Big trouble.

Sulaimon Brown, a fringe candidate during last year’s mayoral campaign who often attacked incumbent Mayor Adrian Fenty and urged people to vote for Gray if not for him, claimed that he had made a deal with the Gray campaign to continue his attacks on Fenty in exchange for a job in the administration and money. All this broke like a flood in a front page Washington Post story on Sunday.

Brown charged that he had received money “in the thousands” from Gray campaign officials Lorraine Green, the Gray campaign chairman, and campaign consultant Howard Brooks by way of cash tucked into envelopes. The Post said it could not verify the payments of the money, which Brown said he had spent.

The story is rife with all the elements of a major scandal—envelopes of cash, cell phone records (although not their contents) between Brown and Gray, Green and Brooks, and text messages from Brown talking about “agreements.” It also had one salient fact: Brown did get a job in the Gray Administration as a special assistant with the Department of Health Care Finance, from which he was fired after the vetting process. He is now on paid administrative leave.

Gray in a press conference did two things: he denied any wrongdoing, but admitted “missteps had been made” in the vetting process. He also indicated he had never promised Brown a job or position, only a job interview.

He also called for an independent investigation of the matter, at first by the interim DC District Attorney and the DC Council. Later he indicated that he would be happy for the DC Inspector General, as suggested by Council Chairman Kwame Brown, to investigate the matter. Ward 2 Councilman Jack Evans wants the U.S. Attorney’s Office to do the investigation. The DC Office of Campaign Finance has already begun a probe.

The whole thing seems shocking and unseemly. And it comes on the heels of hiring practices by Gray that have been roundly criticized for smacking of cronyism.

In fact, Gray seems to be strangely diffident in his reactions, as if this was not a term-threatening or direct attack by Brown. He’s already called Gray, “an organized criminal.”

Told about that charge by WRC4 reporter Tom Sherwood, Gray said, “he said that, did he?” He then laughed quietly and got into his car.

But this is no laughing matter; it has the making of a political tragedy. Brown, with a dubious employment and political record, ran for mayor anyway. He claims his attacks—which included saying that Fenty did not respect his parents—gave Gray the election. At the Georgetowner Candidate Forum just prior to the election, Brown created a ruckus by insisting he had been invited to participate when he had not.

When a reporter pointed out to him that his charges also made him a criminal, Brown insists that he’s willing to pay for what he did, although he hadn’t said a word about it until being forcibly removed from his short-lived office.

The tragedy, of course, is how this will affect Gray, his administration, his agenda and the city as a whole. In two lengthy talks with Gray during and after the campaign, Gray gave the impression of a man who was proud to be a true city native, a son of Washington, growing up in its largely black communities, graduating from Dunbar High School, getting a degree from George Washington University. He’s a man who clearly values family and friendship. He was widely seen as an honest, good man of integrity, and his term as city council chairman was widely seen as successful, handling the hard-charging Fenty’s wide-ranging agenda and the controversies that ensued.

That reputation has taken a hit with this political firestorm. It’s not that Brown’s charges should be believed at face value, especially those involving cash payments. More than one person has described Brown as a loose cannon, and that’s evidenced in these attacks and charges, and his previous behavior at forums. He received a little over 200 votes in the Democratic Party, so his claim that he swung the election for Gray is not very credible. Politically speaking, you can’t trust him. The surprising thing is that there was any sort of contact between the Gray camp and Brown at all.

Here’s one thing to consider. Gray came to politics late in his life, and, and he’s not a natural by any means. He and his friends don’t appear to understand that in an economic climate where you’re asking people to make sacrifices, you don’t hire your friends at big salaries, or their children. The mayor is Caesar, but he has to be Caesar’s wife too, beyond reproach—especially if you ran on a platform of integrity.

More than once, and from those who said it throughout the campaign, I’ve heard people sayit’s like the (Marion) Barry days. It’s not, but you can see why people feel at ease saying it.

For many of his supporters this is a kick in the gut, and the effects will linger. “There are a lot of people who are kind of heartsick, beyond buyers remorse”, one Adams Morgan resident said.

There can’t be a rush to judgment, but there must be a rush to honesty. I believe without any hesitation that Mayor Gray is a man of integrity, but a politician who gets elected can often lose his bearings under this kind of pressure. The mayor ought to be laying down the facts as he knows them, emphatically—with emotion and anger if appropriate—on the table to the public, and instituting the help of colleagues and friends. Trust is not like a credit card or a cell phone. You can’t get a new one if you lose it.

Ashley Miller • March 14, 2011

The Griffin Market has unfortunately closed it doors for what we are assuming will only be for be a very short period of time. This market is and has been part of the neighborhood for generations and holds a very special place in my heart, as I am the granddaughter of the original owners. My grandparents acquired this property back in the 1930s, and the market was my grandfather’s first place of business. My father and his brothers were born in the apartment upstairs, and grew up there for a time. So this is not just a building owned by an out-of-towner.

My grandparents operated the market for many decades. They did eventually sell the business, but have always owned the real estate, and over the years have leased the space to a few different tenants, always with the notion of maintaining the original integrity of having a local, friendly neighborhood market.

Upon the death of my grandmother in 2008, it was requested that I manage the asset on behalf of the Miller Family. The same lease has been in place since the 1980s and has simply been assigned over the years, but with very minimal rental increases. In June and July of 2010, the tenants exercised their option to extend the existing lease through 2018 in writing, but in February announced that they would be leaving and closed their doors. Under the current lease, the rental increase amounted to a total of $84 and not 40% percent, as previously stated. As far as plans for the building are concerned, we are in the process of replacing the windows as well as making minor allowable improvements to the exterior, all in conjunction with the Historic Preservation Society, and I believe we are in the final stages of that approval process.

I am a 5th generation Washingtonian, having attended the National Cathedral School. Having grown up in the District and having heard my family talk about the city and Georgetown, and knowing how they grew up in the area makes this matter even more important to me and my family. This property represents a period in time when small business owners could prosper, and it is my goal as the manager to hold it in the same regard. Our family continues to live and operated businesses in and around the city and will continue to maintain a presence in the city. We will always call it home.

I would like to take this opportunity to assure neighbors that we are actively working to find the perfect tenant for this space, and I’m sure the new tenant will welcome your business and support. It is extremely important for us as a family to maintain the integrity of this building, this neighborhood, this city and Griffin Market, and we thank everyone for their continued support.

David Post • March 9, 2011

Don’t mess with my health care!! Throw out Obamacare!!!

A majority of the House of Representatives voted to do just that, carrying out, as they said, the people’s wishes.

Polls indicate that half the country wants Congress to repeal Obama’s health care law.

Remember when Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid were being chased by the guy in the white hat and weren’t sure who it was? One of them said, “Who are those guys?”

Well, who are the people who want Obamacare repealed?

Is it the 45 percent covered by employer health plans (down from 60 percent five years ago)? Is everyone covered by an employer-sponsored plan satisfied? Or are they nervous about losing what they have? Do the 30 percent covered by government health care oppose Obamacare? Or the 10 percent who have individual policies? Or the 15 percent who have no health insurance coverage? Do the 9 percent unemployed want Obamacare repealed? (The numbers don’t add to 100 percent because of overlap.)

The Department of Labor recently reported that the number of self-employed grew from 9 to 14 million last year because many of the unemployed are trying to start their own businesses. That’s almost 10 percent of the workforce. Most are single-person businesses with no health care, no unemployment insurance and no workers compensation coverage. Do they want Obamacare repealed?

The U.S. spends twice as much per person on health care than does any other nation in the world. Yet U.S. life expectancy – the ultimate measure of health care – ranks 37th in the world, right behind Cuba. Those poor people waiting in line for medical care in Canada, ranked 11th, outlive us by an average by 2.4 years.

Government policies encourage the development of small businesses because they are the job generators, but government policies exempt small businesses providing employee health care. Am I missing something or is that schizophrenic?

My company has approximately 25 employees, but we’re conveniently reminded that we are exempt because we have less than 50 employees. How does that help our employees or our company? We want them to have health insurance. It’s good for them and good for us.

Several years ago, we got a quote for a group insurance plan. It was approximately $10,000 per year per employee, more than our profit, and about 33 percent of our entire payroll.

Our agent suggested individual policies for each employee since that reduced the cost. We offered to cover 70 percent of everyone’s cost, but most couldn’t afford that and few bought it. We ultimately set up a plan where we set aside each employee’s benefit each month. When they need money to pay health care, we give it to them out of their fund.

That worked until last week.

Sadly, we have an employee facing a cancer scare. Medicaid will cover her after she’s incurred (and paid) $15,000 out of pocket. She’s having trouble getting an appointment with an oncologist because they want proof of a source of payment before they will see her.
My son just turned 24. He is a self-employed artist and also works for a small, privately owned company in Washington, DC that cannot afford health care for its staff. He is now headed for grad school, which requires proof of health insurance upon admission. He was on his mother’s policy until last year when he was kicked off. Obamacare would let him stay on his mother’s policy until he’s 26—next July 1. It didn’t apply last July 1. So, we bought him an individual policy.

My hips were replaced five years ago at a clinic that also operates a research facility with the FDA. In fact, my left hip is part of an FDA study. I was a “star” patient. Literally. I did everything required and more, and had such a good recovery that the clinic did a movie about me to show what a good outcome looks like.

Even so, no insurance company will touch me. They are worried that I might be in a car wreck that will really mess up my hips and result in very high medical bills. (If I’m in a car wreck, my concern is more about other parts of my body, like my head and lungs and bleeding.)

The North Carolina high risk pool will cover me after I pay $15,000 per year in premiums and deductibles. I can afford that, but most people can’t.

Obamacare proposed an 8 percent payroll fee on employers who didn’t cover employees to help provide those workers with health coverage. We’d love that. It’s a lot better than the 33 percent cost of insurance.

The irony of Obamacare is that it is essentially the Republican alternative proposed during the Clinton health care debate almost 20 years ago. It was fashioned after the Massachusetts law championed by Mitt Romney, a Republican governor and leading Presidential contender.

Politics is funny. The minority’s idea is a good one until the other side adopts it as its own.

Sometime next year, right before the 2012 election, Anthony Kennedy is likely to decide whether Obamacare should be kept or thrown out. He is the tie-breaker on the Supreme Court. He has the best health care government can buy, guaranteed for his entire life. He will decide whether my employee might have to battle cancer (and fear) without insurance, whether my son must buy his own insurance, and whether I’m insurable.

We are truly a modern medical family.

This is the system half of us want to preserve, right?