News & Politics

Georgetowner • April 5, 2012

The Urban Land Institute issued its final report on a proposed plan for the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Library www.downtowndc.org/go/king-library (901 G Street) last month, setting the stage for the 40-year-old historic landmark to begin an in-depth analysis to determine the feasibility and cost of implementing the report’s recommended scenarios. Although an analysis of the city’s central library will begin next month, its fate has been discussed for years, particularly as Downtown has become more vibrant and property values have soared.

ULI presented preliminary details of its finding to help guide city leaders and residents in deciding the 400,000 gross-square-foot building and MLK Library’s future in November. The three scenarios for consideration include keeping the existing building as a library and lease excess space to another commercial, non-profit or municipal entity, maintaining the existing building for the library’s complete use and selling the building and identify another downtown location for the central library.

The Freelon Group, a nationally recognized architectural firm and the library’s architect-of-record, will examine how the library can be reconfigured for co-tenancy, add two additional floors, and identify, prioritize and provide cost estimates for needed major improvements. In addition, the library will work with the D.C. Office of Planning to explore whether there are viable, alternative locations in downtown that can accommodate a 225,000 SF central library.

Georgetowner •

More dining options are making their way into Downtown. First on the house-cured, hand-carved meat front: the Carving Room (300 Massachusetts Avenue) and Red Apron Butchery (709 D Street) plan to debut this summer and fall, respectively. The Carving Room sandwich shop will open in the Mass Court apartment building to occupy space once reserved for Caldo, the Italian restaurant which decided to set up shop elsewhere. Besides serving lunch and dinner, it will feature an open kitchen, seating for 65 and a sidewalk café with 50 seats. Red Apron, a fixture at local farmers’ markets, will occupy 3,600 square feet of space and serve up all-natural, hormone-free lamb, beef and poultry. Known for its artisanal charcuterie, salumi, sausages, hot dogs and other fare, the butchery will also serve breakfast, lunch and dinner. The Protein Bar, the Chicago-based high protein food and drink eatery, is also coming, and will reside in the Market Square North building (701 Pennsylvania Avenue). Expect to see blended drinks, salads, chicken and vegetarian chili, and “bar-ritos” (made of warm organic quinoa and whole wheat wraps, instead of rice and flour tortilla) on the menu.

Finally, those of you awaiting Freshii’s (555 11th Street) arrival, it’s here. The fast casual franchise that sells customized salads, wraps, burritos, and other healthy fare opened last month, in space once occupied by Gifford’s Ice Cream & Candy Co.

Jack Evans • April 4, 2012

Last week, Mayor Vincent Gray submitted his Fiscal Year 2013 budget proposal to the Council. The total proposed budget for the District is $11.3 billion, the largest in our city’s history. Of that amount, our proposed local funds budget for FY 2013 is $5.9 billion, which is $237 million more than the FY 2012 approved budget of $5.6 billion, an increase of 4.2%. Once you add in certain dedicated revenues, the entire general fund revenue proposal is $6.6 billion. While we also receive federal money in our budget, it is in the same proportional ballpark as that received by any other state. There is a common misconception that the federal government makes a separate contribution to the District, however, this type of payment was eliminated in 1996.

Over the past ten years, our local funds budget has gone from $3.7 billion to $6.1 billion, an increase of 64%. Much of this increase has been in the social services and education budgets. Today, almost 80% of our budget is used for social services, education, and public safety. In light of this extraordinary spending growth, I simply cannot understand the position of some of my colleagues and policy advocates who say we are not providing adequate funding for social services programs. An argument can perhaps be made that spending choices should be made more wisely, but we are not in need of any new revenue.

Fortunately, the Mayor seems to agree at least partially with those sentiments. I am pleased with certain aspects of the budget, such as the absence of any tax increases. I am also pleased to see at least a token increase in the homestead deduction, standard income tax deduction, and personal income tax exemption. I would go even further, however. Due to our large surplus from the past fiscal year and an increase in our quarterly revenue estimate, an argument could be made that we should return these tax dollars to taxpayers, and return the furlough money to our government employees.

I also have concerns that certain revenue raising proposals in the Mayor’s budget may not generate the projected levels of funds. Of particular concern is a proposal to expand the hours during which alcohol can be sold, from 2:00am to 3:00am on weekdays and from 3:00am to 4:00 am on weekends and holidays, for the apparent purpose of generating $1.3 million in increased sales tax revenue annually starting in FY 2013, and approximately $5.32 million in the four-year financial plan period. I believe many residents of Ward 2 will object to this type of change. Therefore, this will require that we find funding elsewhere. The Mayor also proposes to raise $24.8 million in new revenue from increased speed and red light ticket cameras. I disagree philosophically with this nickel-and-dime approach to balancing the budget.

Last year I expressed concerns about inadequate police funding in the budget. While I am encouraged by the Mayor’s commitment to fund additional officer positions, I disagree that a staff of 3,900 officers would constitute a “fully funded” police force. I believe we should increase our force to a minimum of 4,000 sworn officers at all times to protect us from rapid changes, such as when we reach a “retirement bubble.” I also believe we should provide at least $10 million in funding for the Commission on Arts & Humanities as well as additional funds for libraries and parks.

I will be working with my colleagues on the Council to make improvements to the Mayor’s proposal and hope to have your support. Last year, I voted “no” on the budget.  I am hopeful that I will be able to support it this year.

Emma Watters •

Our nation’s capital takes being green very seriously. We top the list of environmentally-friendly “firsts” time and again. The numbers don’t lie, D.C. stands above the competition in LEED certified commercial and institutional green buildings per capita. And any foodie will tell you, this town loves supporting local farms.

Many embassies catch the eye with their beauty and grandeur, but only one prevents greenhouse gas emissions. The Embassy of Finland is the first LEED certified embassy in the U.S. Years of retrofitting the modernist building has produced energy-efficient lighting, plumbing and ventilation. Mirroring Finland’s environmental commitment, the embassy is a pioneer in eco-friendly business practices.

During those all too familiar summer scorchers, Pleasant Pops comes to our rescue. Inspired by paletas, a traditional ice pop from Michoacan, Mexico, the ingredients challenge our taste buds and support local farming. The Pleasant Pops mission dictates strict recycling practices and composting organic waste. Look for their new shop in Logan Square this summer.

Eco-friendliness comes as second nature to Nusta spa, the first and only LEED certified spa in the U.S. Their goal is to approach green from the inside out. Renewable and recyclable, Nusta’s interior meets the highest standards of sustainability. They thought of everything, down to the ink used in printed materials.

Ever wonder where your seafood actually comes from? Not at Tackle Box, whose green philosophy supports local suppliers who are using habitat-friendly fishing gear. Their fluctuating menu combats over-fishing and poor practices that endanger our oceans. Tackle Box believes environmentalism means flexibility, education and community.

Washington Nationals Park is the nation’s first major professional stadium to become LEED certified. Sustainable design elements include energy-saving light fixtures, drought-resistant plants and a green roof over concessions. What about those pesky peanut shells sprawling the ground? A special ground filtration is system designed to catch shells and other debris before reaching the storm-water system.

D.C.’s latest initiative is to keep our schools green. On March 20, the Center for Green Schools at the U.S. Green Building Council released the Green Classroom Professional Certificate. The program educates pre-K–12 teachers, paraprofessionals, administrators and parents about environmentally healthy practices in schools and classrooms.

John Fenzel •

“The gunman entered … and opened fire on ‘everything that moved… How can they attack something as sacred as a school?’”

This witness account, from the school shootings in Toulouse, France is reminiscent of the countless other incidents we have experienced across the United States, most recently at Chardon High School in Ohio.

When a shooting incident occurs in any of our nation’s schools, news travels instantly.  Coverage of the incident dominates our television screens—images of students and faculty streaming outside, parents rushing to police lines, stacks of SWAT teams preparing to enter school doors, media vans lined up on roadways—all of it creating an all-too-familiar scene. So familiar, in fact, that the images and details of each incident have become largely indistinguishable from others.
 
As the discussion has become garbled, so have our strategies for dealing with shooting rampages in our nation’s schools.
 
Following an incident, we’re riveted for a period of a week or so to the news coverage.  We’re systematically guided through the stages of grief by network anchors and pundits: through our guilt for not having recognized the signs earlier…through our anger at the perpetrators…and finally, to our collective view of the incident as an anomaly—something that “could never happen here.” 
 
Months later, another school shooting occurs. This one seemingly disconnected from the one preceding it. And yet, the shooters’ characteristics are remarkably similar:  chronic truancy, religious or political fanaticism, a preoccupation with weapons, someone socially marginalized…on “the fringe,” who is struggling with addiction…and who has announced his intent to kill.  The symptoms and signs remain constant. And in our collective quest to better understand a shooter’s motives, the media narrative often conveys upon us a societal guilt-by-association for the carnage he inflicts.
 
Defining the Problem

On occasion, we take a few steps back to gain perspective rather than catharsis.  And in those moments, it’s possible to transcend our complacency and to see school rampages for what they are: acts of terror.
 
Defining the problem in these terms is a crucial first step toward effective defense—but that step has proven to be surprisingly elusive as we tend to focus instead on the psychology and motivations of the shooter in an incident’s aftermath. But the problem has remained constant:  our children are at risk from those who seek media attention through acts of mass murder.
 
The problem of active shooters in our schools is not new. The first school massacre incident occurred in 1764 at a schoolhouse near Greencastle, Pennsylvania, when four Delaware warriors killed ten children and their schoolmaster. In 1927, a school administrator bombed the Community School in Bath, Michigan, killing 38 people—mostly children.  Numerous other incidents have occurred through the years. The well known and often discussed, like Columbine and Virginia Tech, eclipse those that occurred decades ago, but are no less deadly, like South Pasadena Junior High School (1940) and University of Texas at Austin (1966).
 
What Can be Done?

Identifying students who display at-risk behavior remains key to stopping a school shooting before it occurs.  Homicidal ideation is perhaps the most obvious indicator that a teen may be considering such an act, but there are a host of others, to include: cruelty to animals, suicidal tendencies, and abuse or neglect at home. Reporting comments and observations in advance have prevented many attacks; however, forecasting a school rampage is not always achievable. 

There will be more attacks. As youth addiction to point-and-shoot video games grows, and as weapons become more powerful, a perfect storm of entertainment realism and lethality has gathered, making the potential consequences of future school attacks even more catastrophic than the last.
 
Defending against school rampages is a sensitive topic—far more so than preparing for tornados or fire.  Active shooter drills involving all parties—students, faculty and first responders—are rarely conducted for fear that the visual of the drills alone will be met with cries of outrage from school commissions and PTAs. 

The great irony is that school rampages are responsible for far more fatalities in our schools than severe weather, earthquakes or fires, combined.

So, rather than shrink from tabletop exercises and rehearsals, perhaps we should be insisting on them? Even the simple act of identifying the locations for staging areas, police command posts, media cordons, and reunification sites expedite incident response.  Exercises also give faculty and students a reflexive understanding of school lockdown procedures, and how to effectively respond should they come face-to-face with a gunman. Drills and rehearsals have the added benefit of building relationships with local law enforcement before an incident occurs.  The time for police, first responders and school administrators to be introduced to one another should never be in the midst of a crisis.

Gary Tischler •

They say music soothes the savage beast or words to that effect. Words on a page can do the same thing, or do exactly the opposite, as can music.

Two original and important people, both from the South, in matters of music and words passed away last week, leaving the words and music behind, speaking and playing no more. They died on the same day.

EARL SCRUGGS— Earl Eugene Scruggs—who died March 28 at the age of 88—was “an American musician noted for perfecting and popularizing a three-finger banjo-picking style that is a defining characteristic of bluegrass music.” So spake Wikipedia.

Well, yeah. True. But it’s a little like saying that Elvis Presley was a pioneer rock-and-roll singer who could hit high notes.

Scruggs, to many people who had never heard enough banjo music to love it, became the man who embodied the sound and the music and sent it over the mountain tops usually associated with it. Like many specific kinds of music defined by a region, locale or place of origin, bluegrass music learned to escape its boundaries and became embraced as a purely American kind of music, much like the Detroit Motown sound of the 1960s was embraced everywhere called an American place.

Scruggs—and Bill Monroe and Lester Flatt and, later, Ricky Scaggs—let bluegrass with its rhythmic, rolling, perpetually motion, infectious sound escape not only the boundaries of place but also of genre. It went beyond folk, and country music to be embraced by everyone, including, as it turned out, comedian, writer and movie actor Steve Martin who played with him on national television.

Scruggs did indeed develop the three-finger banjo picking style. He also first achieved prominence in 1945 when he joined banjo impresario Bill Monroe’s Blue Grass Boys. In 1948, Monroe guitarist Lester Flatt joined up with Scruggs and they formed the Foggy Mountain Boys.

If you’re of a certain age, you might remember their music from the theme of “The Beverly Hillbillies” or if you were more of an intellectual bent, from the furiously madcap driving music in “Bonnie and Clyde.”

Mostly, you remember the sound and the music, his generous trust of all sorts of music, and the way he (and Monroe and others) made the banjo and the virtuoso picking and play thereof something other musicians longed and love to play. He made what seemed to some to be a humble instrument something geniuses like to pick up and handle, people like Yo-Yo Ma.

HARRY CREWS— Monroe came from North Carolina, and Harry Crews, of the pre-eminent chroniclers of literature that came to be called Southern gothic (by way of Flannery O’Connor), came from a similar place, hailing from Bacon County, Georgia.

He was a marine, and his writing could be mean. He lived the life of the rough writer, always teaching, always forging ahead like a bull. He was never a best-selling kind of writer, but critics loved him, and his tough, lean, style, his penchant for over-the-top characters. You can tell sort of where he was coming from just from the titles of his fiction: “The Gospel Singer,” “A Feast of Snakes,” “The Hawk Is Dying,” “Scar Lover,” “All We Need of Hell” and “Car,” in which a man becomes famous for eating, well, a car, bit by bolt.

In almost any photo of him, you see a dangerous man, scarred, attitude-plus, unforgettable. When you read him, you get stuff or specks on yourself, as if Crews were spitting words. He wrote a column for Esquire magazine, called “Grits,” and covered things like cockfighting and dogfighting. He was a splendid writer and a hard man, who led a rough life. According—again— to Wikipedia, he had a tattoo on his right arm, which depicted a line from a famous E.E. Cummings poem which read: “How do you like your blue-eyed boy, Mr. Death?”

He liked him well enough. Mr. Crews died March 28 . He was 76.

Georgetowner •

“OK, fellas, we’ve just finished three days listening to lawyers debate the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act,” Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts announced when the nine justices met to discuss their decision.

“Ahem!”

“Sorry, ladies.”

“You mean, Obamacare,” said Justice Alito.

“Let’s try to avoid a political theater since courts are supposed to be unbiased,” Roberts responded. 
“Pardon me, Mr. Chief Justice,” said Alito.  “Twenty-six Republican attorneys general are asking us to kill it. Not a single Democrat.  This is political.”

“Did any of you even listen to all those lawyers babbling?” asked Justice Thomas. “Total waste of time!  Why can’t we just decide based on all that stuff the lawyers submit?”

“He speaks! You haven’t asked a single question in over six years, Justice Thomas.  Oral argument is a tradition predating our country,” answered Justice Kennedy.

“These arguments never change anybody’s mind,” retorted Thomas. “But six hours over three days? Bush v. Gore was only one hour in December 2000 and that elected a president.”

“Justice Thomas has a point,” said Justice Scalia.  “We haven’t devoted this much time to a case in, what, fifty years? The Miranda rights case in 1966 ran almost six hours. Even the case that resulted in Nixon’s resignation was only three hours.”

Roberts again: “We have four tough issues. First, is the timing right to hear this case? Most of the law hasn’t taken effect, and we generally avoid hypothetical cases.”

“Let’s do it now,” Alito said. “With an election coming up, this decision could shape the court for decades. Justices Ginsberg and Breyer should retire soon.”

“Objection!!!” Ginsberg and Breyer rejoined.

“Noted,” Roberts said. “Is kicking delaying this decision the right thing to do?”

“No,” said Kennedy, usually the swing vote.  “The public will be outraged. Political gridlock will get worse.”

“Agreed,” said Justice Kagan, the newest justice and an Obama nominee. 

Roberts returned to his agenda, “The second question is the biggie: Can the federal government require individuals and businesses with more than 50 employees to buy health insurance and penalize them if they don’t?”

“How is this mandate any different than a tax?” asked Justice Sotomayor, another Obama nominee. “All employees and businesses are required to Medicare tax that provides health care for seniors.”

“But this requires them to buy it from private insurance companies, not from the government. Therefore, it’s not a tax,” replied Scalia.

“Presidents Truman, Nixon, and Clinton proposed government sponsored universal health care and failed,” said Justice Breyer. “This idea requiring everyone to buy private insurance originated in conservative Republican think tanks in the 1990s after Clinton’s plan failed.”

“That was then,” said Alito. “People don’t want the government to mess with their health care.”

“I don’t get it,” inserted Ginsberg. “Only 45 percent of the nation is covered by employer health care. Another 40 percent have Medicare, Medicaid or military coverage, and 15 percent buy their own or have no coverage. Who are the 55 percent who oppose it? Most of the opposition must be people unaffected by this law.”

“This is an emotional political issue, not a logical financial one for most people,” responded Breyer, the most economically savvy justice. “Even the insurance industry supports this law because it will get another 30 million customers.”

“Politics and emotions are irrelevant. This is not a hard case. Congress overreached. No one has a right to health care under the Constitution,” offered Scalia.

“Agreed,” said Thomas.

“Our third big question is what to do with the rest of the law if we toss out the mandate,” said Roberts. “Some of the law is in effect already. Kids age 22 to 26 are covered under their parents’ insurance.”

“Exactly,” added Sotomayor. “Drug prices for seniors were cut $3 billion this year. Child immunizations and cancer screenings no longer require co-pays. Annual and lifetime caps are no longer legal, so people facing life threatening diseases can’t lose coverage. Unraveling the parts of this law already in effect will hurt a lot people.”

Kagan again: “People will be furious when they learn that their kids are no longer covered and insurers can terminate their policies.”

“That’s the price the country pays when Congress passes a bad law,” said Alito.

“Finally,” continued Roberts, “can Congress require states to expand Medicaid coverage for the poor or face reduced federal funding?”

“The Constitution gives no one, not even poor people, any right to health care,” repeated Scalia.

“I have a headache,” said Kennedy.  “I feel a split decision coming. Should I start writing?”

Georgetowner •

Now that Google has broken Apple’s iPhone code, Big Brother has arrived. Google just posted this cell phone conversation between Republican Presidential candidates, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, on G(otcha)-Tube.

Newt: Rick, we need to talk.

Santorum: OK. Is this call being recorded?

Newt: Not by me or Callista.

Santorum: Together we’re whipping Romney. No one likes the guy. If you’ll drop out, I can win.
Newt: Callista and I could win if you’d drop out. That’s why we call two press conferences every day asking you to drop out. Plus, it’s free TV time.

Santorum: You haven’t won a primary in over a month and I win every week. I even beat you in the deep South.

Newt: Rick, I’ll be 69 on Inauguration Day. Like Reagan was. This is the last shot for Callista and me. Ron and Nancy. Newt and Callista. Synonymous. Four peas in a pod.

Santorum: I was in college drinking beer when Reagan was elected. I didn’t know Reagan, but you’re no Reagan.

Newt: Face it, Rick. You got lucky. During the first 20 debates, you were so far down the stage, the TV cameras couldn’t see you. No one cared about your opinion. Mitt’s millions knocked us off one at a time. You were invisible. Iowa happened before Mitt got to you.

Santorum: I lived in Iowa for 3 years. I visited the home of every voter in Iowa. My kids went to school there.

Newt: Your kids are home schooled by your wife. By the way, what’s her name? Rick, if Iowa had been two weeks later, Mitt’s Super Pac would have crushed you, too. Then Callista and I’d be back on top for the third time. Mitt spent his entire fortune trashing me, but Callista and I are hanging in there because we’ve got strong financial support.

Santorum: Newt, you only have one donor.

Newt: One more than you have.

Santorum: But I’ve had lunch with everyone who’s voted for me.

Newt: You can’t have lunch with 50 million people by November.

Santorum: Voters agree with my morals. They want to give up contraception. Families were bigger and better before sex came out of the closet.

Newt: You can’t run a campaign on social values. And what were you thinking telling Spanish-speaking voters in Puerto Rico they had to learn to speak English? You didn’t win a single delegate. Callista and I have promised $2.50 gas. That’s what people want to hear.

Santorum: If we invaded Iran, got its atomic bombs, and took over its oil fields, gas would be 43 cents a gallon.

Newt: After the primaries, how are you going to attract Independent voters? Reagan taught Callista and me the importance of Democrats for Newt.

Santorum: I don’t have to move to the middle. Most Americans are conservative Christians and agree with me. Besides, Newt, you’ve got a family values problem.

Newt: Reagan was divorced and won. Before you met your wife, she lived for five or six years with a guy 40 years older than she was who wouldn’t marry her. What’s her name?

Santorum: And you were having an affair with a twenty-something staffer while you were prosecuting Clinton for doing just that.

Newt: Come on. Doesn’t Callista look like a First Lady? She led me to Catholicism. My kids love her. Just look at her polish, her hair, her jewelry. Better than Jackie!

Santorum: Newt, if we keep splitting the conservative vote, Mitt’s going to get 35% and win while you and I get 50% and lose. He says he can save the economy, but who wants to read his 59 page plan?

Newt: That’s why Callista and I offered Herman Cain the job as Treasury Secretary. Everyone understands 9-9-9. Reagan taught Callista and me the importance of simply cutting taxes to balance the budget.

Santorum: I’m going to eliminate all taxes on manufacturing. That will create so many jobs that unemployment will disappear. And you don’t need an education to work in a factory.

Newt: I’m going to eliminate capital gains so all rich people – not just manufacturers – will have more money to hire poor people.

Santorum: How do we stop Mitt?

Newt: You need to drop out. Be my VP. If we win, you get the nomination in 2020. If we lose, you’re the immediate front runner in 2016.

Santorum: I’m already the front runner in 2016.

Newt: What’s that beeping sound? Are you recording this?

Santorum: Of course not. What is that beeping sound?