Does the President Really Matter?
• May 3, 2012

From now until November, all of us will be bombarded in print and on the airwaves with political campaign ads, polling numbers, social media advocacy, vitriol and validation.  All focused on the election of one individual to a single office, the President of the United States.  

But in the grand scheme of things, as you watch these campaign commercials, ask yourself this simple question:  Does the president really matter? 

Think about it for just a second. 

There are those who are reasonably certain that the president they elect will be their personal salvation — rendering their household bills suddenly affordable, putting cheap gas in the tanks of their SUVs, reducing crime in their neighborhoods and taking them off the unemployment rolls. 

The perception of the president as having absolute power over one’s life is nothing new.  But it is a naive and polarizing view. 

In the 1840s, Scottish writer Thomas Carlyle wrote that “the history of the world is but the biography of great men.”  Writing about men like Muhammad, Luther and Napoleon, Carlyle theorized that heroic men shape history through both their personal attributes and via divine inspiration — that all great events turned on the great decisions of great men. 

If the entire country defines the chief executive’s span of responsibility, can a president be held accountable for everything that the nation does or fails to do? 

Credit or blame, in their cumulative form, generally define a presidency.  Both are spun wildly by pundits in countless venues with countless agendas.  But the reality is that a president actually has far less influence on our daily lives than we may give him credit.  The president is routinely described as the most powerful person in the world.  It is, after all, the president who creates budgets, develops domestic policy, energy policy and conducts foreign policy.  The president nominates Supreme Court and Federal judges.  He sets legislative agendas and has veto power over congressionally passed bills. 

But they never do so in a vacuum.  There are countless countervailing, equalizing forces that face every presidential decision — from sending troops into a war zone to submitting a budget resolution.  He must face congressional opposition, media scrutiny, lobbyists, foreign leaders and Supreme Court decisions. 

We routinely elect our presidents under the promise of “change.”  But presidents are seldom the sole catalysts for change.  They get plenty of help along the way.  They can help set the conditions for progress, but they rarely directly cause it to occur.  If a president goes too far with a policy, opposition sets in, and the intended action is voted down or modified in some way.  In the longer term, if he goes way too far or doesn’t do enough, he’s not re-elected.  The president submits a budget for the nation, but Congress must pass it.  When Congress passes a budget resolution, even when he opposes it, the president has no choice but to spend the money. 

What was the last presidential decision that affected you?  Most of us will be hard-pressed to think of even one. 

Certainly, for our servicemen and women and their families, the question will be readily answered with whatever theater of war to which they or their loved ones have deployed.  For those who have been injured or killed, the loss of life or limb cannot be reversed or changed.  And so, for the 1 percent of our nation who serve, the president and the decisions he makes as commander-in-chief, matter a great deal. 

For everyone else, whoever is president affects our lives to a far lesser extent than we may believe.  We may agree or disagree with a president’s policies, but precious few of those policies represent original thought.  Chances are, for each policy cited, other presidents before them have espoused something very similar.  Agendas may matter far more than the president himself. 

So, here’s a quick drill for you.  Answer this quickly:  Who are the truly great presidents? 

Maybe you answered with names like Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, FDR.  Those Americans born before 1963 may point to President John F. Kennedy, based on the decisions he made during the Cuban Missile Crisis, that played a principal role in averting a global nuclear war. Whomever you picked, chances are, those presidents likely did indeed do great things — created the conditions for our democracy, preserved the Union, averted nuclear war, etc.  But whoever were your top picks, it’s likely that your list represents only a fraction of the 44 U. S. presidents.    

That’s why leadership matters, above all else. 

As politics becomes more and more polarizing, and as Americans are moved further and further to extremes, there will be many who attempt to attach the “Great Man” theory to the Office of the President. 

But don’t fall for it.  For even a second.

Business Group Celebrates Valentine’s Day with ‘Heart-to-Heart Networking’
•

The day after Valentine’s Day was as good a day as any for the Georgetown Business Association to hold its monthly get-together, calling it a “heart-to-heart networking reception.” The group packed the upstairs at Cafe Milano Feb. 15 with warmth — and with hors d’oeuvres by the famed Prospect Street restaurant and drinks by the GBA. Brian Armstrong thanked the happy, talkative crowd and said that GBA’s March reception would be held at Sequoia Restaurant. [gallery ids="100496,118101,118092,118049,118085,118060,118078,118069" nav="thumbs"]

Big Benefits of Early Childhood Education
•

On Feb. 16, the D.C. Council Committee of the Whole will hold a public hearing commencing at 10 a.m. on a bill (Bill-19-0566) I introduced titled, the “Early Childhood Education Act of 2011.” I invite you to come and testify.

If enacted, this bill will ensure a curriculum is created and implemented that guarantees a reasonable expectation that our three- and four-year-old children are adequately prepared for entry and achievement in the District of Columbia Public Schools kindergarten program. In addition, the bill will ensure a curriculum is created and implemented that guarantees a reasonable expectation that our third grade children will be able to read independently and be able to add, subtract, multiply, and divide upon being promoted to the fourth grade.

Currently, there are 10,000 preschoolers enrolled in our early childhood education program. There is also a large population of children enrolled in kindergarten, first, second and third grades. Before standardized testing begins in the fourth grade, we must ensure that our children are equipped with the basic tools to succeed by being able to read independently and add, subtract, multiply and divide upon entering the fourth grade.
According to the curriculum timetable in schools, the formative years is the time when a child is learning how to read and learning the basics of mathematics. In the fourth grade, the curriculum changes and a child is expected to read for comprehension and is no longer expected to learn the basics of how to read. The fourth grade also introduces a child to mathematical concepts such as fractions and decimals in preparation for algebra and so on.

According to the United States Department of Education, a child who has not mastered the basic foundation for education upon entering the fourth grade will have a high probability of having contact with the criminal justice system. Research indicates two-thirds of students who cannot read proficiently by the fourth grade will end up in jail or on public assistance. Moreover, several states forecast needed prison growth based on third grade reading scores. Clearly, we must do everything within our power to avert our children from having contact with the criminal justice system, by putting in place support systems that help children meet educational standards.

As community residents, parents, grandparents, educators, teachers and taxpayers, we have a vested interest in improving educational standards within our community. As taxpayers, we deserve a return on our investment with efficient and effective high-quality learning environments in which all District children are the beneficiaries.

Education is the starting line to a life of productivity. Please join me in providing our children with a curriculum designed to provide them with the opportunity to have a great start in life.

No Dodos, Bush and Obama Stopped a Depression
•

Forty years ago, I won what became my family’s first “Dodo of the Year” award. Instead of calling me an unmitigated idiot, my father called me a dodo, after the now-extinct bird famous for being too stupid not to run away from, but toward, its captors who then killed it.

Before each new year, while doing resolutions, my dad sought nominations for new “Dodos,” and an annual ritual was born.

My act of dodo-ism was parking my car on the hill on Main Street and failing to engage the parking brake. As I got out of the car, it began to roll backwards across four lanes of traffic. After making a useless effort to stop it, all I could do was watch helplessly. Fortunately, no cars were coming in either direction, and brick planters across the street stopped my car from crashing through two stores.

Had I not jumped out of the path of my runaway car, it would have crushed me. My dad may have had to bury me, but he still rightly would have called me a dodo. Instead, we had an honest conversation about the virtues of emergency brakes on hills.

If only we could do the same in this presidential election with all the screeching about jobs losses and bailouts.
In February 2008, 137.9 million Americans had jobs, a national high. In January 2009, 133.5 million people had jobs, a loss of 4.4 million jobs during the last year of President George W. Bush’s presidency.

In January 2010, at the end of President Barack Obama’s first year in office when jobs started to climb back up, another 4.3 million had lost jobs, leaving 129.2 million Americans employed. Both 2008 and 2009 saw similar losses, though technically, a few more were lost during Bush’s last year.

November 2008 and January 2009, both under Bush’s watch, were the two worst months of this recession, when more than 800,000 jobs were lost. February and March 2009, President Obama’s first two months in office, were the next two worst months.

Like my inability to stop my car rolling down the street, no one – a president, a Treasury secretary, a Fed chairman – could have stopped the job-loss express either immediately or within two months.

At the beginning of the Great Depression, President Herbert Hoover’s laissez-faire, leave-it-to-the-markets policy believed government should get out of the way and allow markets to fix the problem. At the same time, the Fed did nothing to stimulate the economy. The result? Unemployment jumped from 4.2 percent in 1928 to 8.7 percent in 1930 – very similar to President Bush’s last year in office – and with no government intervention, unemployment continued to rise until it hit 25 percent in 1933.

When Franklin Roosevelt became president in March 1933, he immediately closed the banks, instituted banking reforms and initiated a broad range of government programs. The bleeding stopped within a year – similar to President Obama’s first year. Though growth remained anemic under Roosevelt, unemployment trickled down to 17 percent in 1939 when the industrial production required by World War II pulled the country out of the Great Depression.

This time, Presidents Bush and Obama sought and received $700 and $800 billion, respectively, and the Fed kept money flowing. It stopped a depression.

Memories get fuzzy – or selective – in the heat of a presidential election. The various presidential candidates are arguing that the bailouts were failures, that Obama is the cause of the job losses, and that the Fed should be eliminated. In effect, they are arguing for Hoover’s laissez-faire policies.

When President Bush looked down the black hole of “laissez-faire,” he famously said, “This sucker could go down,” asked for $700 billion and cut the checks. Had President Bush done nothing, the two largest U.S. banks and two of the three U.S. auto companies – Citibank, Bank of America, GM and Chrysler – would have disappeared. Heaven knows what catastrophe would have followed. Yet, the presidential candidates, in effect, are suggesting that would have been better.

Like Roosevelt, Presidents Bush and Obama, and the Fed, took dramatic action. They saved a now-thriving auto industry. Our banks are recovering. More than 3 million new jobs have been created in the last two years. Government can do good.

When my car was going to crush me, I jumped out of the way. Presidents Bush and Obama had the courage to step in front of failing banks, collapsing car companies, and a landslide of job losses and try to stop them. Had they followed my example, they, too, could have won “Dodo of the Year.”

R2P: The New Obama Doctrine?
•

“More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region. I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds. . . . Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That’s why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.” — President Barack Obama

This statement from President Obama could easily be applied to the emerging civil war in Syria, but they were actually spoken at the outset of his administration, on the occasion of his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance. In his speech, he spoke eloquently about “just war,” and “the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.” Both of these messages implicitly embrace an internationalist philosophy that’s widely become known as “Responsibility to Protect,” or “R2P.”

A little over a decade ago, the phrase “responsibility to protect” was introduced by an international commission in an effort to recast the doctrines of “right to intervene” and “obligation to intervene,” while still preserving the intent to act decisively in humanitarian crises. R2P quickly assumed the status of a “norm” (rather than a law) for the United Nations in preventing mass atrocities of the kind witnessed in Rwanda and Bosnia.

A year ago, in his speech justifying the U.S. intervention in Libya, Obama announced that Libya’s assault against its civilian population created a “responsibility” for the international community, stating that “when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act.”

Most recently, the U.S. dispatched a special operations force to Uganda to act against one of Africa’s most brutal guerrilla groups.

The precedents in word and deed clearly convey an active endorsement of R2P. However, the true test may lie ahead in our response to Syria’s ongoing repression.

R2P has evolved with a set of defining “pillars,” “thresholds” and “obligations.” Entire non-governmental organizations have since been built around R2P. It even has its own Twitter hash-tag with a host of followers, to include billionaire George Soros and actress Mia Farrow — all of the necessary marketing ingredients for a presidential doctrine, ready-made.

R2P has strong advocates within the Obama administration, including Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, and Samantha Power, the National Security Council’s senior director, widely considered one of the principal architects of the Libya intervention.

In short, R2P shatters the premise that sovereignty, in the strict Westphalian sense is inviolable, arguing instead that it is a responsibility. According to R2P, every state has a responsibility to protect its population from mass atrocities. If they can’t do it themselves, the international community is obligated to assist them — even if they don’t want the help. Once peaceful measures like economic sanctions have failed, the international community has the responsibility to intervene militarily — but only as a last resort and only if the UN Security Council authorizes it.

In a narrative reminiscent of St. Augustine’s letter to Boniface outlining what would ultimately become the foundation for Just War theory, R2P advocates that all military interventions must fulfill six broad criteria:

• Just Cause
• Right Intention
• Final Resort
• Legitimate Authority
• Proportional Means
• Reasonable Prospect

Even a cursory review of President Obama’s speech justifying our Libya intervention last year shows a close alignment — even synchronization — with these criteria.

While circumventing Congress is nothing new for presidents, what is noteworthy in the case of Libya is Obama’s apparent effort to elevate R2P as a universal principle that not only trumps traditional perceptions of national sovereignty but also transcends the constitutional tenets that give Congress the sole authority to declare war.

Whether the president will declare his official sponsorship of R2P remains to be seen, but the language of his recent speeches and the actions of his administration make it clear that R2P is indeed a cornerstone of his foreign policy. A telling indicator will be whether he is willing to give R2P even more prominence by intervening militarily in Syria without UN Security Council approval.

While some may hail a unilateral NATO campaign against Syria as further strengthening R2P, the irony is that it could actually weaken it. Just as inconsistency or failure to act in humanitarian crises can diminish an R2P-based policy, any perception of “R2P-as-Subterfuge” for Western national self-interests (crushing the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah axis, for instance), could have devastating affects for the broad R2P construct, long term.

In the coming months, Obama’s action or inaction on Syria will largely determine whether R2P is to remain a UN norm or if it will ultimately emerge as the “Obama Doctrine.” It’s a topic being discussed by administration strategists — and the whispers outside the White House gates have already begun. Yet, a more fundamental, if not practical, question for those West Wing discussions will be whether an R2P policy is sustainable in a time when defense budgets are dramatically declining.

Help Returning Warriors and Have Fun at a St. Patrick’s Day Fundraiser
•

Make your St. Patrick’s Day more than just an opportunity to party — remember our returning warriors and benefit the non-profit, Not Alone, at a hip, new restaurant.

The March 17 celebration at Todd and Ellen Gray’s Watershed Restaurant will raise funds for Not Alone, which is dedicated to supporting returning warriors, veterans and their families. One of the sponsors for the “You are not alone” party — which will feature Gray’s signature Eastern Seaboard-inspired cuisine, a specialty cocktail drink and an open bar — is the Georgetown Media Group, which produces the Georgetowner and the Downtowner newspapers.

Many of our returning warriors struggle with post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and suicidal thoughts. Not Alone is a national organization that offers a variety of programs, services and resources for warriors, veterans and their loved ones. It offers both on-line and off-line programs that can help restore hope for those who struggle. Not Alone recently launched a free, confidential and anonymous community service in and around Washington, D.C.

Watershed Restaurant, site of the St. Patrick’s Day party, is located in the NoMa neighborhood near Capitol Hill at 1225 First Street, N.E. The Restaurant Association Metropolitan Washington named Todd Gray “Chef of the Year” in 2011. He shares a passion for inventive interpretations of American cuisine with his wife Ellen. For readers of the Georgetowner and the Downtowner, tickets which cost $100 are discounted at $70 per person, or $125 for two tickets. For more information, visit www.NotAlone.com. [gallery ids="100529,119459" nav="thumbs"]

A Balanced Budget for D.C. Now, But What About Fiscal 2013?
•

This week, the D.C. Council met at its annual retreat to review legislative priorities, receive briefings from various officials and make plans for the coming year. We also recently received the audit of the fiscal 2011 budget – known as the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (“CAFR”), an event of particular interest to me as Chair of the Council’s Committee on Finance and Revenue. 

First, the good news from the fiscal 2011 CAFR: the District sustained its 15th annual balanced budget and unqualified “clean” audit. In short, our finances today are a far cry from the desperate straits we faced in the mid-1990s. The audit also confirmed we have no “material weaknesses” (we had two in fiscal 2008) and reduced our “significant deficiencies” from five to two. I am glad we have made meaningful progress on our internal control systems. Every year, the District spends millions of dollars on various audit functions – not only the CAFR, but also the operations of the D.C. Auditor and the Office of the Inspector General. A few years ago, we decided to pool all this information more systematically and bring in under-performing agencies to submit remediation plans to correct the deficiencies. This new approach has begun to pay off.

We finished fiscal 2011 with a surplus of nearly $240 million, which now resides in our savings accounts. While I am glad that our financial position remains so strong, this surplus has caused a lot of anger among the hundreds of thousands of District residents who were asked to pay a number of new taxes and fees in last year’s budget, which I voted against. Before we rush to spend this money on an ever-expanding government, I think we need to take a hard look at making more sustainable spending choices. We have already received briefings on the status of the current fiscal 2012 budget by Mayor Gray and are expecting the upcoming fiscal 2013 budget submission from the mayor in late March. While we have a windfall now, indications are that the mayor will seek to spend all of this money and more to address potential gaps in the budget if he does not begin to spend within his budget. 

Every year, seemingly, we face “spending pressures” in the middle of the fiscal year. As it is February, the mayor has the opportunity to review these problems and take corrective action so that we end fiscal 2012 with a balanced budget. A more difficult challenge will be the work of the mayor and the council to balance the fiscal 2013 budget. Unfortunately, the government has built in cost increases every year, so that we pass the biggest budget in our history each year in spite of the difficult economic climate. No other state goes through recessions without making tough spending choices as a result. Clearly, this spring we will have some very serious challenges facing us and many tough decisions to make. I hope that with your help we can convince the mayor and my colleagues to find efficiencies within existing agency budgets by making tough choices rather than simply increasing taxes every year.

Before the budget is released, we first go through the performance oversight process. Over the past two weeks, I have sent a number of questions to the agencies under my purview to collect data on agency structure and recent spending. After I review what has worked and what has not, I will be in a better position to make recommendations on adjustments to the agency budgets for next year. Thanks for your support during this process, and please feel free to contact my office as well as to my colleagues to share your views.

St. Patrick’s Day Parade in DC (photos)
•

Constitution Ave. was a sea of green as Washington DC kicked off its annual St. Patrick’s Day Celebrations with a parade on Sunday March 11. Traditionally, the District hosts the parade on the Sunday preceding the actual St. Patrick’s Day which won’t arrive til March 17. The parade featured floats, Irish dancers, bands and military units. The grand marshall of this year’s parade was popular restaurateur Cathal Armstrong (Restaurant Eve, Virtue Feed and Grain). View our photos of the event by clicking on the photo icons below. [gallery ids="119788,119690,119682,119675,119665,119657,119649,119641,119632,119698,119706,119778,119769,119760,119752,119744,119733,119724,119714,119621,119611,119601,119494,119485,119797,119477,119803,119468,119809,119817,119504,119513,119591,119581,119572,119562,119553,119543,119533,119524,100530" nav="thumbs"]

U.S.-Afghan Women’s Council Lunch With Hillary Clinton and Laura Bush
•

Honorees, distinguished guests, journalists and friends crowded inside the Benjamin Franklin room at the State Department on March 21 to congratulate the members of the U.S.-Afghan Women’s Council on the 10th anniversary of supporting the women of Afghanistan.

Founded in 2002 by President George W. Bush and Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai, the council connects both U.S. and Afghan governments with the private sector, academia and non-governmental organizations to identify needs and to develop and implement initiatives to support Afghan women and girls. The council is based at Georgetown University.

“There is an Afghan proverb: A good year is determined by its spring. I think that is a worthy proverb to keep in mind, and indeed it is a call to action for us to be sure that the spring sets the pace for the kind of good year we hope to see in Afghanistan,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said. “Let there be no doubt that even as the U.S. role in Afghanistan changes during the next few years of transition, we will continue to stand with and work closely with Afghan women.”

“Some may wonder if these efforts and partnerships truly make a difference,” said Zala Ahmad, a student from rural Afghanistan who now studies at Brandeis University in Massachusetts thanks to the council. “I can tell you firsthand that they do.”

While toasting the council with red glasses of hibiscus tea, dining on endive salads and Atlantic cod, and treating tastebuds to the sweet dessert served, a passion fruit clafouti, guests listened to Clinton, former First Lady Laura Bush, John DeGioia, president of Georgetown University, Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues Melanne Verveer and several other speakers from Afghanistan involved with the council share stories and the astronomical differences in percentages of Afghan females now attending schools and even holding prominent positions.

“Girls make up about 40 percent of the nearly 8 million children going to school in Afghanistan today,” Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan Zalmai Rassoul said. “In 2000, there were no girls at that time.” He also noted that 30 percent of school teachers and 15 percent of university teachers are women. Today, 24 percent of doctors and medical workers across Afghanistan are women.

Even with these positive numbers, he said Afghan women continue to be innocent victims, but the council has helped give them their opportunity back.

“God created a couple,” said Vartan Gregorian, president of Carnegie Corporation of New York. “He did not create men first, women second. He created a couple at the same time. So, there is no way half of the couple can be inferior to the other half of the couple.”

After several rounds of applause credited to the amount of effort and success that has gone in to the council, both Clinton and Bush were presented awards for their dedication by Georgetown University. Clinton was given the Caring for Children Lifetime Achievement Award from the Center for Child and Human Development by DeGioia, who teased that Clinton has been fighting for the rights of women and children since she wrote her scholarly article in 1973 for the Harvard Educational Review. Bush received the Champion for Afghan Women Award from Verveer, who said Bush “led by example, mobilizing resources to ensure that Afghan women and girls gain skills, opportunities, and particularly the education that they were denied under the years of Taliban repression.”

When the luncheon was finished, Verveer said the program was over but the journey to continue fighting for the rights of Afghan women is not. “We hope that we will all continue to work together,” she said.

Ins & Outs 4.4.12
•

M&T Bank, which has a branch on Thomas Jefferson Street, will be adding another Georgetown location at 1420 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., where the clothing store, Commander Salamander, once sold its funky wares.

Never mind: Crave, a sandwich and salad eatery on Potomac Street that opened a couple of weeks ago, was abruptly closed. A dispute between business partners led to the decision. Manager and co-owner Garrett Bauman, also of Annie Creamcheese vintage clothing, told the Georgetowner he hoped to find another location nearby.

The men’s clothier, Gant, is coming to Georgetown in August and moving into 3239 M Street. It could not be more different than its previous tenant, the free-wheeling, live-music bar, the Saloun. The 2,000-square-foot space will sell Gant, Gant Rugger and Gant by Michael Bastian, according to Women’s Wear Daily. Georgetown just got more preppy, as if it needed more help, Gentlemen’s Quarterly opined: “The whole collection is still grounded in the archival, American sportswear Bastin and co. have perfected in the past few seasons but amped up in the flair department, complete with special details like the floral lining on an insanely perfect M-65 jacket or the bold flecks of bright yellow and orange on a Donegal tweed blazer.” As if . . .

Ligne Roset and Natuzzi are setting up shop in Glover Park. The furniture retailers have jointly leased the storefront at 2209 Wisconsin Avenue, said property manager Cynthia Cumbo, who added, “The space should be ready in March.” The space was vacant after Mobili furniture departed more than three years ago.

The clothing store, Riccardi & Sports, have left the Shops at Georgetown Park along with so many others. It can now be found at the main Riccardi at 3213 M Street — 202-625-6687.

Mega and green, too: Swedish fashion giant Hennes and Mauritz — which has its H&M store on M Street at Georgetown Park — plans a separate luxury line for 2013. “We have many different projects in progress and already next year we will be launching a completely new store chain. Like COS, which today is very successful with good profitability, the new chain of stores will be independent and complement the other offerings from the group,” CEO Karl-Johan Persson confirmed.

On April 12, H&M will launch its Exclusive Glamour Conscious Collection, promoted by Amanda Seyfried and Michelle Williams and is made using sustainable materials including organic cotton, hemp and recycled polyester.

Hair stylist Luigi Parasmo is set to open his first namesake salon with fellow stylist Javier Calvo in Georgetown. Luigi Parasmo Salon will be equipped with a staff of 14 hair, make-up and nail stylists and opens its doors to the public on Tuesday, April 10. It will be located on 1510 Wisconsin Avenue.

The Chipotle-spinoff restaurant Shophouse Southeast Asian Kitchen plans to open in the old location of Furin’s Bakery at 2805 M Street. The first Shophouse restaurant in Washington opened in Dupont Circle in September last year. Shophouse aims to serve fast Asian food with high quality. The Georgetown Shophouse will open “later this year,” according to the company.

Tony and Joe’s Seafood Place at Washington Harbour and the Potomac will finally reopen its inside restaurant for business in early May with some changes in both interior and on the menu. Since the April 2011 flood only the outside patio and bar have been open, and a limited menu has served from an outdoor kitchen.