News & Politics

Robert Devaney • February 15, 2013

The National Park Service has reviewed its temporary halt to an eviction of Jack’s Boathouse and wrote to Jack’s on Jan. 18 that it has decided “to issue a new temporary concession contract for non-motorized boat rental and storage devices and to allow you to continue your operations until such time as the contract is awarded, provided that your occupancy comports with National Park Service standards . . .”

The Jan. 18 letter from NPS regional director Stephen Whitesell to Jack’s Boathouse owner Paul Simkin rescinds the Park Service’s Dec. 18 letter sent to the popular canoe and kayak renting facility on the Potomac River in the shadow of Key Bridge that first brought up the eviction — and howls of protest in late December from fans of Jack’s.

The Park Service wrote in its Jan. 18 letter to Simkin that it “will release a Request for Qualification (RFQ) for non-motorized boat rental and storage devices at or near the location of the present operation. We will evaluate all responsive proposals, including yours should you wish to submit one . . . “ The deadline to respond is in two-and-a-half weeks, Feb. 6.

Meanwhile, Charles Camp, attorney for Jack’s Boathouse LLC, will file a complaint with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by the end of the week, he said.

Camp said, “I am more convinced than ever that the National Park Service does not the power to do this [evict Jack’s]. Camp said he has looked over the letter of exchange and cited the assigned duties and rent but said there is “not a lease,” and he added, “The delegation of D.C. duties is to the National Park Foundation.”

There was no development allowed in the Park Service’s agreement with the District, Camp contended. “The NPS wants a concession there,” Camp said. “That’s development.”

Adding to his argument, Camp said, “Under the 1980s’ agreement [between D.C. and the NPS] rent money is to benefit the Georgetown waterfront.”

Understandably, Jack’s owner is clearly upset about this latest obstacle in his fight to remain on the shores of the Potomac and operate his business, a Georgetown tradition since the 1940s. Simkin has owned and run Jack’s since 2005. He has operated under a lease controlled by the Park Service that has not updated since 1982; the monthly rent remained a little more than $350 for years. Simkin said he has made significant improvements to the property that cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Several weeks ago, Simkin has retained attorney Charles Camp, who first wrote to Park Service, citing a detail of September 1985 reso- lution by the District Council, concerning the transfer of D.C. public land in the area around Jack’s: “The National Park Service shall assume responsibility to repair, maintain, and protect all wharves, piers, bulkheads, and similar structures that are located on the transferred land or in the adjacent waters.”

Upon learning of the Jan. 18 letter, Simkin issued this statement: “We thought we were doing the right thing. We thought by following the rules, making our customers happy, increasing our customer base . . . approximately 18 -fold and creating a special environment that people from all-around the world, not just D.C., wanted to be a part of, that we were doing things the right way. Without being too cliche, it’s the American way. We somehow failed. I think we’ve just been too naive. We are being steamrolled into oblivion by the National Park Service, and we still don’t know why.”

“If this were a simple rent matter, we would have been happy to pay what was asked. We were never asked. In addition, we have now learned that they [the National Park Service] should have been paying, all of these years, for dock maintenance — something that has cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars out of pocket.

“If something doesn’t change soon in the next few days, we are finished. Jack’s will be gone forever. The legal expenses here are killing us, as is the Park Service’s failure to respond to us in any meaningful way and leaving us absolutely in the dark. Its willingness to see a D.C. resource turned into a typical corporate entity will prevail. In fairness to my employees, I’ve had to tell them that the future at Jack’s appears bleak. That’s 27 persons.”

Robert Devaney •

The Powerhouse at 3255 Grace St., NW, along the C&O Canal, is the newest event venue in town, fit for fundraisers or weddings. With bay windows and a smoke stack, the 6,500-square foot interior once was part of a real powerhouse; it was also the site of a high-power public relations firm in the 1980s. The business touts its proximity to the M Street shopping corridor as well as the town’s hotels, such as the Four Season and the Ritz-Carlton, and the new entries, the Graham and the Capella. Visit thepowerhou. se for more info.

Jack Evans •

I was disappointed to learn of Dr. Natwar Gandhi’s recent decision to retire as the District’s chief financial officer, effective June 1. Much of our success in maintaining fiscal discipline can be attributed to his leadership. I have said many times that I would not trade the District’s financial position with that of any other city, county or state in the country. The District now has a $1.5-billion cumulative general fund balance, a half-billion-dollar increase from just a few years ago. This is $2 billion above the District’s lowest fund balance level, which was minus $518 million during the Control Board period in 1996. Our audit this year was the District’s 16th consecutive clean audit and our fiscal year 2013 budget was the District’s 16th consecutive balanced budget.

While the mayor and members of the council have at times criticized Gandhi’s conservative revenue forecasts, I strongly believe having a surplus at the end of the year is better than finding ourselves with a deficit and the potential reintroduction of a control board. Particularly during this time of recent instability in our government, it has been critical to have an independent CFO with a demonstrated commitment to maintaining integrity in financial projections regardless of political pressure. I have seen firsthand how difficult it is to bring efficiency into a government bureaucracy, which makes it all the more impressive that our Office of Tax and Revenue can issue income tax refunds in three to five days for electronically filed returns, and just ten days even for paper filings.

Perhaps most important to me is the District’s bond rating. The District must issue bonds to finance important infrastructure improvements, such as schools, libraries and parks. I cannot emphasize enough how adept Gandhi and his team have been at communicating with the credit rating agencies at our annual meeting in New York. These rating agencies determine how expensive it will be for us to borrow money. Meetings such as this help us to secure our Income Tax bond rating of “AAA” by S&P and “Aa1/AA+” by Moody’s and Fitch. Our general obligation bond ratings, which were considered “junk bonds” in the Control Board Period, are now in the A+ and double-A range. The District has been recognized for our new highly-rated Income Tax Secured Revenue Bonds that help to ensure ongoing access to the financial markets with low interest rates. The initial issuance of these bonds gained recognition as one of the Bond Buyer newspaper’s “Deals of the Year” in 2010.

The credit rating agencies now have a very positive view of the District’s financial position and our bond issuances are routinely oversubscribed and pay among the lowest interest rates among major cities. Therefore, I am not just talking about a general sense I have as to Gandhi’s value – Gandhi’s work has led to tangible savings for the District. For example, the use of variable rate bonds has saved us more than $100 million.

Since Gandhi’s resignation is not effective until June 1, I am hopeful the mayor will undertake a thoughtful search and send a well-qualified candidate that I can move swiftly through my committee’s confirmation process.

While Gandhi’s departure will mark a huge loss to the District, the opening presents an opportunity to bring in a new perspective in furthering our financial stability and future growth.

Robert Devaney •

Just north of Georgetown, the new traffic patterns formed by Glover Park’s $5-mil- lion Wisconsin Avenue Streetscape Project have many neighbors fuming over the reduced lanes on the avenue. The project put rush-hour lanes at two, down from three; the intent was to make the area more walker-friendly. Others like the wider sidewalks, such as the one next to Holy Rood Cemetery. The debate may seem like it is driver versus pedestrian, but it is more than that as residents worry about traffic overflow.

Comments abound on community forums. Indeed, there is a Facebook page for venting: www.facebook.com/GloverParkTrafficJam.

Rick Gersten wrote in the Georgetown Forum: “This plan apparently was generated by the need to promote smart growth planning. I, as many of you do, support smart growth planning. However, we can’t stand by and allow the city and those who favor this project to be protected, without changes, simply because ‘smart growth planning’ has been the reason for it. … We have either experienced firsthand or have heard from others the reasons we have no Metro in Georgetown. Here it is: The decision to not have metro was made by a few people who derided those who were in favor of that project. We are experiencing that same type of attack in reverse by a few influential people who stand by the original plan of the relined Wisconsin Avenue project.”

Cynthia Anthony added this in the forum: “To avoid the traffic mess on Wisconsin Avenue, I now drive farther into the residential area. … When I have driven straight up Wisconsin in non-peak hours (which used to be a pretty short trip) there are very few cars actually using the left-hand turn lanes. We’re now all crammed into the one lane, and if someone gets out of a cab, or a bus can’t fit all the way into the curb, there’s goes the traffic flow. “

Another Glover Park resident wrote directly to the Georgetowner: “Sure the neighborhood harps about it. But it is perhaps the best thing that ever happened for everyone down the hill in Georgetown — and everyone in the neighborhood. Stand up here for a while and wait to see how that open median allows fire trucks, ambulances and motorcades to double their speed from Calvert Street to Holy Rood. … I was out in front of Pearson’s the other day, and there was a Secret Service guy on a big Harley parked watching the avenue: a hook-and-ladder headed south at full speed, cleared Calvert and with the median open must have kept going 40 miles per hour south; then, there was a motorcade north. Think of the mess those two would have made with the old system.”

Robert Devaney •

One more time, kids: please lock your doors. Seems each semester, this warning is repeated. Last week, a rash of burglaries hit Georgetown University main campus dormitories and a classroom building from Jan. 28 to Feb. 8 at Copley, Harbin, McCarthy and Regents Halls., according to the university’s public safety department. Most items taken include a laptop, phone and watch. In all cases, doors to the rooms were unlocked. One of the suspect was described as “a black man with a thin build. He’s about 5’10 and was seen wearing a green jacket. Anyone with information should call police,” according to WJLA.

Robert Devaney •

The D.C. Court of Appeals overturned the 2010 conviction of “an Arlington man accused of breaking into homes and sexually assaulting male Georgetown University students as they slept,” according to the Washington Examiner. The court ruled Jan. 31 that Todd Matthew Thomas “can get a new trial because prosecutors were allowed to tell jurors that he was previously convicted of sexually assaulting another man in Virginia.” Thomas had been sentenced to 26 years in prison for burglary and assaults on five male Georgetown students between 2007 and 2008. The assaults occurred on 33rd and 35th Streets near the university’s main campus. During the trial, Thomas has claimed another “Georgetown Cuddler” had committed the crimes, because there were similar attack on female students — and he had been wearing an electronically monitored ankle bracelet at that time.

Georgetowner •

District of Columbia Mayor Vincent Gray’s State of the District Address last week was downright celebratory — and there appeared to be a lot to celebrate and promise.

Mayor Gray promised to pay special attention to the issue of affordable housing, pledging to commit $100 million to affordable housing and the thousands of additional units that would result. There was talk about the continuing rise in the District’s population, at the rate of a thousand per month, rising school enrollment and a rising number of charter schools, and numerous commercial developments en route to being begun or completed all over the district, including areas which hadn’t seen many cranes before. Things were getting to be just peachy in the district, what with at least two vastly improved sports franchises and another apparently on the road to getting better.

We have a major $400 million surplus,
ladies and gentlemen, which is great for everybody, even city employees who may get a raise after years of having none. Yup, it’s great to live in D.C.

…Unless you happen to be homeless. Washington Post Metro writer Petula Dvorak pointed out the startling fact that there are 600 kids living in the city’s single family homeless shelter. Six hundred kids. Not only that, but according to her report, the kids and parents living in that shelter have to go through uncommonly difficult bureaucratic hoops just to get cots there.

The mayor rightly indicated that we’re on our way to becoming a capital capitol city. Everyone can enjoy living here and wants to come here to live here. It’s a great town unless you’re homeless.

It’s good to hear about the focus on affordable housing, but we haven’t yet heard any details, or if there’s money in the hundred million that might go toward the homeless, increasing shelters or housing for the homeless and making sure that children. There was talk once of creating affordable housing geared for the homeless, especially for homeless families, single parents or children. Let’s hear details about those funds for affordable housing. Maybe then we can call ourselves a capital city.

David Post •

Twenty-seven words.

13 don’t count.

“A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state…”

Those opening words of the Second Amendment are completely ignored by the NRA and largely ignored by the Supreme Court.

14 words, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” count and those 14 words kill tens of thousands of people every year.

From 1776 to 1783 the Continental Army, a ragtag citizens’ army of 17,000, fought our Revolutionary War. The army was rounded up by the Paul Reveres who rode through towns marshalling the forces. Citizens arose from their beds, grabbed their guns – because the army didn’t own any – and went to war. When the war ended in 1783, the Continental Congress did not want a permanent army like the British had, so it was disbanded. Soldiers went home with their guns.

Eight years later, when the Second Amendment was passed, an army of private citizens on call was the only military. Hence, the first 13 words. Some argue that those 13 words were intended to allow citizens to rise up and declare war against a “bad” government.

Poppycock! The idea of citizens rising up against the U.S. government is laughable. A member of the Tea Party recently asked me, “Don’t you believe that the Holocaust would have been avoided if the Jews had been allowed to have guns?” Jews with guns could no more have held back the Nazi army than could the citizens of a city hold back the U.S. Army.

No government gives the governed the right to overthrow it violently. In fact, the United States Constitution specifically dis- allows that possibility. Section 3 of Article III of the Constitution says that ”levying War” against the government is Treason, and Section 4 of Article IV says that the federal government shall protect the states “against domestic Violence.”

Instead, the founders gave us the First Amendment and the ballot box so that citizens could criticize and overthrow the government peacefully. What purpose is a Constitution that gives citizens the right to wage war against – that is, to destroy – the government they create?

Conservatives theorist and judges argue that courts should apply the original intent of the Constitution and that the Constitution does not change with the times. At the time of the Revolution, muskets could only shoot one bullet at a time. While one soldier shot a musket, a second soldier loaded another gun with another bullet. Not until ten years after the Second Amendment was passed, did Eli Whitney – of cotton gin fame – invent the concept of standardized parts which allowed thousands of guns to be manufactured from similar interchangeable parts. His only cus- tomer was the federal government.

Ironically, when guns are involved, conservatives become liberals and embrace the “times change” attitudes. True conservatives would not be debating clips that hold thirty bullets or automatic weapons that can fire hundreds of rounds a minute. They would be debating one-shot muskets.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the deceased philosophic US Senator, quipped that because the Constitution failed to mention bullets, Congress should simply outlaw bullets. After all, he said, bullets, not guns, kill people.

Whatever gun laws emerge from Congress in the next few months will pale in comparison to the next Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment. The NRA and its ilk point to DC v. Heller, the 2008 Supreme Court decision, believing it prohibited all gun control. Heller merely held that DC’s ban on handguns was too restrictive, but the Supreme Court left open many questions, including acceptable “limits” on gun laws and “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

The gun debate is about patience. Over the next eight years, four Supreme Court justices over age 74 – two liberal and two conservative – will likely retire and be replaced. The winner of the 2016 presidential election will likely re-shape the Supreme Court – and gun rights – for decades to come.

Until then, the first 13 words of the Second Amendment will be ignored. Pray for the quarter million people in the U.S. who between now and then will die from bullets.