News & Politics

John Hlinko • November 29, 2010

-This letter is in response to Gary Tischler’s editorial of November 3rd, “Congrats to Gray: Election Day and Beyond.” As a Georgetowner myself, and as the founder of the Facebook page Mr. Tischler referenced, “Run, Fenty, Run”, which helped jumpstart the write-in campaign, I thought it would make sense to address some of the points Mr. Tischler made regarding that effort.

Overall, there are a lot of good points made in the piece, and we too have joined in congratulating Mayor-Elect Gray on his November 2nd victory. We’ve posted it right on the page, and even offered Gray use of the page to reach our supporters.

My only quarrel with Mr. Tischler’s piece was with the section apparently ghost-written by George Orwell:
“It is a peculiarly undemocratic approach that says: We won’t accept the election results that we don’t like and we’re going to try and change them.”

It’s hard to know where to begin with this sentence. First, when this was written (as Mr. Tischler notes), the election for mayor hadn’t actually happened yet. The September election was a primary to choose party nominees. The November 2nd election was when the mayor was chosen. That’s why they called it an “election.” Call me old fashioned, call me sentimental, but I kind of like the quirky American tradition of waiting for the actual vote before declaring a winner.

The truly confusing part, however, is the claim that this effort was somehow “undemocratic.” Which part was undemocratic? The part where we tried to get more votes in the actual election? The part where we tried to run a campaign for our preferred choice for mayor? The part where volunteers stood out for 10, 12, 14 hours or more, trying to convince other voters to consider writing him in as well?

Now, in fairness, I was out of town for a few days, so I apologize if I missed the part where write-in supporters rolled out the tanks and declared a coup. And if they made Fenty “Generalissimo for life” in my absence, well, my bad.

But otherwise, it’s hard to see how this was anything but profoundly democratic. A group of grassroots supporters rallied behind their preferred candidate, and, with almost no budget, miraculously convinced
23% of voters to write in the name of that candidate. No, Fenty wasn’t on the ballot, and wasn’t running. But that’s the whole point of having a write in. If a voter thinks the best choice for that office is not on the ballot, he or she writes in the person they think is best, even if that person would need to be “drafted” to accept the office. The vast majority of people written in on Election Day are in fact not running.

Was it a long shot? Absolutely. Was it a pain in the neck for Mayor-elect Gray, and even Mayor Fenty himself? Almost certainly. Was it undemocratic? Well, since when is democracy “undemocratic?”

Veena Trehan • November 17, 2010

-“Save Your Pennies.” Families save for big purchases or tough times. States similarly create “rainy day funds,” and the federal government spent less in prosperous times and more in difficult ones (per Keynesian theory). The New Deal, with its creation of jobs in the Great Depression to rebuild and restore America’s infrastructure, typified this approach.

President Bush came to D.C. with projections of a federal government surplus but eliminated it by cutting taxes and starting two wars. With 20 percent of citizens un- or underemployed, now would be the perfect time to use savings. Its absence allows Republicans to create an issue of debt reduction rather than recognizing the cyclical nature of our economy.

“Make Good Choices.” Brutal war actions like drone attacks, nighttime raids and random civilian killings led Afghani and Iraqi leaders to ask America to shrink its presence overseas. For Democrats, America’s continued involvement is a regular sucker punch. President Obama’s lack of haste in exiting the wars dampened the enthusiasm of these ardent supporters, whose energetic canvassing led to 2008’s record voter turnout.

“How Did You Do?” Government agencies and businesses have their own report cards, measures and plans. But somehow this seems to break down for our country as a whole.

American’s lives are affected by unemployment, excessive bank fees, growing difficulty in paying mortgages, health care expenses and coverage surprises. These were tackled through major legislative initiatives, though it’s generally agreed all areas need more work.

Many candidates ran on shrinking government and repealing health care. But these steps won’t improve most daily realities. In fact less protection through less regulation, less help to the states, and lower budgets will make things much worse for most middle-class Americans.

“Let’s Ask the …” We seek help for kids from doctors or coaches, and for ourselves from plumbers or attorneys. There is a great deal of expertise and consensus among researchers and economists. As an example: most economists say extending the tax cuts are a relatively ineffective way to create jobs, with tax cuts for the rich being far worse. Experts also recommend short-term government investment to create jobs, and investments in renewable energy and infrastructure. But candidates relied very little on these experts in the past election cycle.

“What’s The Teacher’s Pet Doing?” Imitating and measuring oneself against a good set of peers can make one soar, while a bad peer group can sow the seeds of destruction and failure. Businesses speak regularly of “best practices” or being “world class.” Governments also look for leaders to emulate.

But the election featured surprisingly little discussion of the priorities and programs of growing, successful countries overseas. For example, China and India are investing in high technology, transportation, education, and health care. Yet many successful candidates advocated cutting the same areas that are helping these countries thrive.

“Sticks and Stones …” Actually, names do hurt. Calling health care reform “Obamacare” was critical to turning people against it. People aren’t refusing to put their unemployed child on their insurance, or insisting that their cancer treatment not be covered by their insurance company. “Death panels,” Obama as a Muslim and the demonization of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi galvanized a frustrated base that agreed with the substance of many recent reforms.

Georgetowner •

-The Georgetowner’s editorial, “The Perpetually Delayed Waterfront Park Turns to the Community for More Money”, (November 3, 2010) could not be more wrong. The funds are in hand to complete the Georgetown Waterfront Park in the Spring of 2011. In the past several months, work on Phase 2 of the park has been moving full-steam ahead. The river steps are in place, the pergolas have been erected, and a construction of the fountain, pathways, and riverside promenade is well underway.

Despite the progress, the editorial mistakenly reported that Friends of the Georgetown Waterfront Park continue to seek additional donations from the community to complete Phase 2 of the Park. Not true. The Friends continue to recruit new members and to solicit efforts, but thanks to the Federal and District governments and private donors, sufficient funds have been raised to complete construction of the entire Park.

The editorial posed the rhetorical question: “Is this troubled park currently worth the efforts and resources of an ailing economy?” First, the Georgetown Waterfront Park is not “troubled.” The Park has been a long time coming, and the path forward has not always been straight. But with full funding the park will be completed, as planned, by mid-2011.

More importantly, is the Georgetown Waterfront Park worth the effort and resources, particularly during the current recession? Absolutely, unequivocally, “Yes.” In times of economic hardship, when recreation budgets are stretched, city residents and visitors rely increasingly on public parks and recreation areas. Were the resources of the Federal and District governments and corporate and individual donors that have been used to build the Georgetown Waterfront Park well spent? Take a walk through the park along the glistening Potomac, on a crisp November morning. Priceless.

Georgetowner •

Last Tuesday, we elected the people who will lead the District of Columbia starting in January. My colleague, Vince Gray, will take office as our new Mayor and Kwame Brown as Chair of the Council. The challenges before elected leaders are tremendous, and the next several weeks will be crucial in determining the fiscal future of the District.

Although the city is in good financial shape overall, we learned from Chief Financial Officer Natwar M. Gandhi in September that we are facing a $175 million shortfall for the fiscal year that began October 1. This shortfall comprises approximately $50 million less in sales tax revenue, $50 million less in income tax revenue, $35 million in federal stimulus money the city anticipated but did not receive, $25 million in spending pressures in our public schools, and other costs. We face another $135 million shortfall in fiscal 2012, when one-time stimulus money is no longer available.

When the mayor and council faced similar shortfalls over the past three years, we relied largely on spending our reserves to close the gap. This was possible because by September 2005 the District had built up reserves totaling $1.6 billion. But year after year, as revenue slowed and spending increased, we drew down our savings. Over the past three years, the District has spent almost $1 billion in reserves, leaving us only $611 million today. No more of this amount can be used because it supports our revenue bonds and other debt commitments. The District also continued to borrow for capital investments and has increased its outstanding debt to the legal limit of 12 percent of annual debt payments to revenue.

Without reserves available to close our spending gap, and no more room to borrow, we must either raise revenue, cut spending, or both. Because our rates in commercial property tax, personal and corporate income tax, and sales tax are already the highest in the region, and in some cases the nation, it is difficult to ask our residents and businesses to pay more, particularly in these tough economic times. Raising taxes might help to close the shortfall now, but it will also put us at a greater competitive disadvantage with Maryland and Virginia in the future. It’s no secret that new residents and businesses that relocate to the region go elsewhere to save money. This hurts our long-term ability to expand our revenue base and pay for government — including the social safety net — that we want and need.

On the expenditure side, more than 85 percent of our budget is dedicated to social services, education, public safety, and debt service. Reductions in these areas are very difficult, again because of the times. But these areas must be reduced if the city is to balance its budget. Keep in mind that we spend more money on education per student, and on social services and public safety per resident, than most cities and states, and we are consistently ranked as having one of the highest rates of government employees per capita.

We cannot afford to jeopardize all the progress we have made with our bond ratings and investment climate. Now is the time to right-size spending, no matter how painful the decisions might be. Postponing this downsizing by using tax increases and one-time fixes will only lead to larger deficits. I continue to assert — as I have for the past 3 years — that this revenue downturn is not a one year phenomenon. I believe the economy will continue to grow anemically, and we certainly cannot count on a big turnaround in revenues to save the day.

The experience of the District in the 1990’s continues to serve as a cautionary tale. Back then, we used one-time fixes and ended up with a control board. The board then made the hard decisions that the elected government would not make. I will not allow something like that to happen to the city on my watch.

Georgetowner •

The Council and Mayor are beginning to address the revenue shortfall and budget gap now anticipated in fiscal year 2011, which started October 1. To that end, the Mayor took immediate action to freeze personnel hiring and procurements. Our government faces a shortfall of $100 million in declining revenue and $75 million in various spending pressures. In the grand scheme of things, we have little control over the economy, we can’t make the stock market perform better, and we can’t make commercial property sell for more. But what we CAN control is what we spend, and I believe that should be the focus of our efforts.

If we examine some of the recent tax increases passed by the Council (generally over my objection), you’ll find they fall into that “be careful what you wish for” category. Some of my colleagues believe you can raise taxes and everything will be alright. However, with the two initiatives from last year, our revenues actually went down. The first was the increase in the general sales tax from 5.75% to 6% that went into effect October 1 last year. So what happens? We get our revised revenue estimate from Chief Financial Officer Gandhi, and our sales tax collections are now lower than a year ago. So the tax increase did not cover the continued government spending. We also raised the cigarette tax — a socially admirable goal, yes, but not a reliable source of revenue. It has likewise decreased in revenue production while spending has continued unabated. So after both of these two tax increases, we have dug our hole deeper rather than the other way around.

Of course there are various proposals bandying about right now — predominately to increase the income taxes on high income filers. In fact, one proposal would boost income tax rates for filers over $100,000. I believe such proposals would backfire. There are many interesting statistics contained in the city’s annual “CAFR,” which formally is the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, or our annual audit. In the most recent FY 2009 CAFR, it states (Exhibit S-2H, Page 163) that in the year 2000 there were just over 26,000 income tax filers in the “$100,001 and higher” category. In the year 2009, this had increased by just under 20,000 to about 45,500 filers.

What was the income tax revenue impact of “growing the pie” by attracting new residents over this time period? It was an increase in tax collections by the city of $334 million in 2009 as compared to 2000, with of course growth in all those years in between. In short: an increase of hundreds of millions of dollars over a decade just from an increase of 20,000 filers in this one tax category. So what if half of them never moved here or we abandon our successful tax policies (which have attracted people back into the District) and the inward migration stops? Or worse yet: What if people decide to leave the District? Will that have a revenue impact? You bet it will, and it will be a lot bigger than whatever amount we may get from increasing taxes on “the rich.”

I believe we were elected to make the tough decisions. I am hoping my colleagues will take the long view and not vote, yet again, to unwisely raise taxes.

Georgetowner • October 22, 2010

-Readers of The Georgetowner’s October 6 issue were presented with a summary of the ANC meeting including the Tudor Place Resolution in the GT Observer section and a letter by Neighbors of Tudor Place. As President of the Board of the Tudor Place Foundation, I want to address misconceptions presented in the latter.

Following proper preservation practice, in 2004 we invited proposals from two local architects, one currently a member of the Citizens Association of Georgetown’s Historic Preservation Committee and the Neighbors of Tudor Place, and selected one to lead a team of highly regarded experts to draft a preservation plan. They rigorously assessed the needs of the property’s historic resources. Then, with something concrete to discuss, we openly and in good faith engaged in public dialogue with neighbors and other stakeholders. Since January 2010, we have held nine meetings, five of them with a working
group of Neighbors of Tudor Place. We carefully considered all concerns and options presented, answering each one after extensive deliberation (and considerable expense), and made significant changes to the plan. To cite one, the proposed alterations to archives and collections storage adds $800,000 to the original $2 million estimate, hardly what we consider “a minor adjustment.”

The last private owner of Tudor Place, Armistead Peter III, granted to the U.S. Department of the Interior in 1966 “for the benefit of the United States of America [and] for the inspiration of the people.” As successors to Mr. Peter’s easement and his will, we take his mandates seriously. In the easement, Mr. Peter forbade any new construction that would “interfere with … the view of the main house from Q Street, or the view from the main house toward Q Street.” No one need fear that “what was once glorious open space will now feature imposing buildings.”

Mr. Peter also wisely foresaw the need for supplementary facilities, including “a greenhouse, a gatehouse or administration building, additions to the garage … in order to increase its storage capacity,” and other structures “necessary for making its historic values more easily or adequately
appreciated.” The National Park Service is responsible for ensuring provisions of the easement
are maintained, and we have consulted with them throughout this project.

The four new structures provided for in the easement are the same as those mentioned in the Citizens Association’s column, although there the Gatehouse has become “a large visitor’s center” and the storage facility “an extensive addition to the existing garage.” In reality, the Gatehouse will have a footprint of only 1,040 square feet, far smaller than any house fronting either side of the long 1600 block of 31st Street. The gatehouse will “stretch” all of 25 feet within Tudor Place’s 645-foot frontage on that block. What the Gatehouse will accomplish belies its small size. It will provide security, ticket sales, a gift shop and visitor toilets.

Neighbors acknowledge that the “obscenely large” addition to the 1914 garage has “now been reduced to a very large addition.” The length of this proposed fireproof and climate-controlled archive and collections repository will be reduced far more substantially than they imply, from 49 feet to 25 feet, and will be 95 feet from houses on 32nd Street. Additionally, Tudor Place will lower the addition to one story (east side) above grade (due to the slope, two stories west side) by building three stories underground.

The greenhouse has been reduced in size and height. It will be at least 125 feet from houses facing 32nd Street. “The large one-story education center [that] is still proposed a short distance from neighbors’ properties” will actually be farther from the properties than the existing garage, which will be demolished. A vegetative screen and fencing will be installed, and access to the rear yards of neighbor properties permitted.

Because the Board of Trustees takes our mission and our concern for neighbors seriously, we have made conscientious efforts to be transparent in our presentations and will continue to do so. Our planning process has been no secret; we have written and talked about it since 2004. We have offered open forums at Tudor Place on Oct. 14 and again on Oct. 20 to review what is proposed. To sign up, or if there are concerns or inquiries, we encourage you to call 202-965-0400, ext. 100. We want everyone to know not only where and what we plan to build, but why we must.