Back to basics at the Franklin School

An op-ed that I drafted on the future of the Franklin School will be included in the print edition of Sunday's Washington Post.  You can read it online here.  Please comment on the Post website and pass the article on to others.

Over the past few weeks, a number of organizations and individuals have expressed strong support for putting the Franklin School back into educational use.  Some include the Federation of Citizens Associations, the Committee of 100 on the Federal City, Advisory Neighborhood Commission 2C, Commissioner Keith Silver (ANC 6C02), and former Historic Preservation Review Board Chairman Charles I. Cassell.

Considering that the city received only a single submission from a private developer in response to its Request for Proposals (a boutique hotel and restaurant), clearly, the momentum is building toward returning the building to a use that advances the education system and workforce development in the District.

Vacant or Blighted - Part II

Near northeast resident Tom Madison displays before-and-after photos of a dozen vacant properties fixed after imposition of the higher tax.

In 2009, the D.C. Council eliminated the vacant property tax, which had provided an incentive to renovate, rent, or sell vacant properties and put them back into productive use. This was a result of the interaction of several factors: (1) backlash after the D.C. Council voted to double the tax from $5 to $10; (2) more consistent enforcement of the law by the DCRA; (3) the occasional innocent owner unfairly getting hit with the higher tax; and (4) the recession and its impact on developers with properties awaiting financing and smaller owners that lacked funds to undertake renovation plans.

On January 27, the DC Council's Committee on Public Services and Consumer Affairs and Committee on Finance and Revenue held a hearing to discuss how the government should address vacant and blighted properties in the future.

Two bills are currently pending before the Council. B18-546, introduced by Councilmember Muriel Bowser, would keep the vacant property registration system, eliminate exemptions (which now apply only to the need to pay a nominal registration fee), provide for an upward sliding scale for registration fee depending on amount of time property is vacant (likely beginning at about $500 and increasing to a maximum of $5,000 per year), simplify the citation issuance process, and require property insurance for vacant properties. The bill is helpful, but not ideal.

B18-448, introduced by Councilmember Jack Evans, would eliminate the remaining vacant property registration system altogether and focus only on blighted determination. It would discard all of the good work of the DCRA over the past few years to compile an accurate list of vacant properties, as well as residents and community associations that have worked hand-in-hand with DCRA. Even without a vacant property tax, this list allows DCRA to closely monitor these properties for violations (litter/dumping, overgrown grass, unsecured, illegal billboards, as well as criminal activity) and determine whether they are "blighted."

Rather than a consisting of a handful of neighborhood activists, development-types, and DCRA officials, the hearing was standing room only.  Testimony lasted over six hours with quite a few fireworks as passions were high on both sides.

Tom Madison, representing the Capitol Hill North Neighborhood Association, came prepared with a dozen before-and-after photos of properties in his near northeast neighborhood that had been renovated and are now occupied as a direct result of imposition of the higher tax.  Madison was immediately followed by David Shames, a lender, who began his testimony, "you can't tax a property into good condition, can you?" and challenged those who say vacant properties have an adverse impact on the surrounding community.  As Shames did so, his neighbor on the panel, Madison, waved his photographs in the air.  [Video of Hearing]

For those who wonder if there is a significant difference between what properties are included in the definition of "vacant" and the definition of "blighted," consider the statistics below, provided in DCRA Director Linda Argo's prepared testimony:

Ward		Vacant Properties	“Blighted” Properties	Percentage of Vacant Properties that are “Blighted”
1		327	25	7.6%
2		187	5	2.7%
3 4		67 282	1 9	1.5% 3.2%
5		362	25	6.9%
6		340	7	2.1%
7		561	13	2.3%
8		322	17	5.3%
TOTAL		2,448	102	4.2%

That's 2,346 absentee owners, many (or most) who do not even live in the District of Columbia, who received a massive tax break this year when their property tax went down from $10 per $100 value to just 85 cents.  [Note: These statistics likely include only vacant buildings, not vacant lots].  You can view a map of the vacant and blighted properties in your Ward, as identified by DCRA, below (click for full size maps).

The Council should adopt a vacant/blighted property system along these lines:

1. Retain the vacant property registration system;
2. Restore a higher tax applicable to vacant property (possibly at the prior $5 level);
3. Provide for graduated increases in the tax the longer the property remains vacant (i.e. increasing progressively as high as $10 if a property is vacant for 10 or more years);
4. Apply the vacant property tax to both vacant lots (unimproved land) and vacant houses and commercial buildings (improved land);
5. Provide for limited, objective exceptions, such as (a) when a property is in probate, (b) within one year of purchase (to not discourage buying and renovating properties subject to the tax), (c) when the owner is serving in the military, and (d) when the owner is in long-term care due to age or a medical condition. Frequently abused exceptions, such those that permitted owners to evade the tax by placing a “for sale” sign on the property (while demanding above-market prices and refusing / ignoring offers), or by obtaining permits for nominal work, should not be incorporated into the new law;
6. Continue to address “blighted” properties through DCRA’s aggressive use of currently available fines (i.e. for dumping, overgrown grass, or unsecured property) and the condemnation process (for unsafe and insanitary properties); and
7. Provide an expedited appeal and refund system for property owners who are inadvertently charged the higher rate.

If the Council deems a vacant property tax undesirable in the current recession, particularly with respect to substantial projects that await financing, then it might consider the measures above along with a one-year moratorium on the tax for 2010 applicable to specific development zones that could be extended by the Council if absolutely necessary.

Here are seven reasons why the vacant property tax should be restored.

Dual Roles

When President Obama was elected, he established a new ethics rule that barred new officials from working at an agency at which they lobbied over the past two years or from making policy on any matter involving their former employers or clients. 

The District of Columbia has a very different approach.  Here, an individual can be appointed (or elected) to an important public position and continue employment with a law firm that represents those who are regulated by the government entity.

In the early 2000s, residents were frustrated with the course of the District's Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board.  They fought tooth and nail for the ABC Board to impose restrictions and penalties on problem businesses that were the center of public drinking, loitering, litter, public urination, and underage drinking.  Hearings went on forever with no result.  Even when Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANCs) and community organizations reached agreements with the owners to curb the abusive practices, the ABC Board rejected the agreed-upon solutions in favor of more lenient approaches.  Just before I joined the Logan Circle ANC in 2002, it had discontinued all activity related to ABC licenses out of sense of frustration.  

Part of the ABC Board's lack of responsiveness may have stemmed from the fact that the Chairman of the ABC Board at the time was Roderic Woodson.  While serving as Chairman of the ABC Board, Woodson also worked at Holland & Knight, a law firm that represents the alcoholic beverage and hospitality industries.  Real or imagined, there was at least an understandable perception of a conflict of interest.

The Administration may have changed, but the practice of appointing an individual to represent the public while that individual is also holds another job that represents the regulated parties has not. 

In the article reprinted below, an outraged Peter Tucker draws attention to the latest controversial appointment that appears to be moving forward.  What is your view?

Bogged Down by Patton Boggs:
Betty Noel vs. Vicky Beasley
Peter Tucker


If the DC city council approves the mayor’s nomination of Vicky Beasley to head of the Office of the People’s Counsel, another Patton Boggs employee will fill a top DC government position. Since 1975, the Office of the People’s Counsel (OPC) has been “the advocate for consumers of natural gas, electric and telephone services in the District." Utility companies like Pepco, Verizon, and Washington Gas are given near-monopoly status by the District government. When a consumer has a problem with a utility, there is likely to be no government agency to turn to for help, aside from OPC. At the head of OPC is the consumer oriented Betty Noel, who is completing her unprecedented sixth three-year term as People’s Counsel.

At a Saturday hearing on the District’s utilities, witness after witness, from all over the city, criticized the performance of the utility companies (especially Pepco). They praised Ms. Noel’s experience, professionalism, and willingness to stand up to — and, if need be, sue — the utility companies on behalf of consumers. There was an overwhelming consensus that Betty Noel should be renominated for a seventh term, and that Vicky Beasley wasn’t qualified for the position.

While Vicky Beasley possesses minimalexperience with utility regulation or consumer issues, she has experience of another kind: according to Patton Boggs’website, “Ms. Beasley’s clients include telecommunications entities [and] quasi-governmental agencies.”  Unlike Betty Noel, who has made a career of fighting against greedy utility companies, Vicky Beasley apparently fights for them. I called Ms. Beasley and asked her to specify which clients she serves, but she declined to say and asked that I direct any questions for her to the Office of Boards and Commissions (which then referred me to the Mayor’s spokeswoman, Mafara Hobson, who has yet to respond to my questions).

District residents have experience with Patton Boggs employees in top government posts. Aside from the mayor and the chair of the city council, DC’s third most powerful elected official may be the chair of the committee on finance and revenue. This position is currently held by Councilman Jack Evans, an employee of Patton Boggs.  As chair of the finance committee, Mr. Evans has been instrumental in placing huge amounts of precious taxpayer dollars and public land into private hands, with little public benefit to show for it: Examples include the baseball stadium (more than $725 million), the Convention Center ($850 million), and now the Convention Center Hotel ($272 million), to name a few publicly funded, Evans-inspired projects.

There is a great deal at stake in who fills the position of People’s Counsel. The OPC is the only thing standing in the way of the utility companies getting the ever-higher rates they covet. If the council votes to confirm Vicky Beasley, a Patton Boggs employee whose clients include “telecommunications entities” and “quasi-governmental agencies,” OPC may head in a radically different direction; a move that utility companies will surely cheer.

Common Cents for Metro

Aside from accidents and suicides, our Metro system seems to be in a perpetual state of insufficient funds.  Proposals continually resurface to deal with deficits by reducing service.  Such proposals include closing metro stations earlier and opening them later, increasing the length of time between metro or bus arrivals, and cutting bus lines.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Metro will continue on a downward spiral if it leads area residents to decide that it's just not worth it to take public transportation.  Loss of ridership will further plummet revenues, even while needs for safety improvements and expansion of the system continues to grow.  More people will simply drive -- adding to traffic congestion and parking issues.

And our quality of life will suffer.  There are many individuals who depend on metro to get to work early in the morning or late at night -- whether it's service employees or lawyers.

If the Metro system is ever going to expand to meet the region's increasing population, then its revenue structure needs to be placed on solid footing.

Metro should conduct a comprehensive review of its fare rates. At $1.35, our Metro is still considerably less than the base fare in New York City ($2.25), Chicago ($2.25), San Francisco ($2.00), and Boston ($1.70 with card). It's also far less than London (2.20 GBP for zones 1-2 = $3.50 USD). Perhaps metro needs to increase its base fare and, based on ridership statistics, consider fares to other stations or whether it is to the systems benefit to have a single, higher fare. Given the steep rise in gas prices, cab fares, and parking fees in recent years, even at a bumped up rate, taking Metro will still be a good deal. Complaints about Metro revolve around packed trains, delays, and safety - not a buck thirty-five.

Nor should Metro cut bus routes. While many routes remain underutilized, this is a result of a failure of Metro to make bus route maps available for many years and to get the "next bus" system up and running until recently. With more public education as to the available bus options, ridership may increase. The DC Circulator's success proves that buses are indeed viable.

If seeking to reduce costs and improve service, WMATA should consider whether it actually needs a bus stop on nearly every block in many areas. Can it keep the same service with less buses by spreading stops about three blocks apart? Not only would this save money, but it would actually get people where they are going more quickly.

This is not a tough choice.

At least the public seems to get it, as reported in the Washington Post today.  Members of the public who testified before WMATA on Wednesday overwhelmingly supported a fare increase of about 10 cents, and strongly opposing reductions in service or deeper cuts in the capital budget to address the deficit. Will Metro listen?

[See also GGW, We Love DC, and Unsuck DC Metro's coverage of the hearing.  A Washington Post's editorial gets it partially right by taking the position that WMATA should not take money from the capital budget rather than adopt a modest fare increase, while leaving the door open to some service cuts.]

Gales School / Central Union Mission Fell Through

The Gales School, 65 Massachusetts Ave NW.  Photo by M.V. Jantzen on Flickr.

A press advisory posted on the city's website last week seems to indicate that the planned move of the Central Union Mission into the Gales School, located between Union Station and Mount Vernon Triangle, has officially fallen through.

The historic Gales School was initially scheduled to reopen as a homeless shelter in 2009, but deal was caught up in legal problems with the ACLU.  It charged that the city was violating the separation of church and state by entering a deal in which the city would pay several million dollars to renovate the building, then transfer it to Central Union Mission, which requires those who stay with them to take part in prayer, as part of a land swap.  Even as late as September 2009, however, Central Union Mission remained optimistic that they would move into the building from their 14th and R Street location in late 2011.  DCMud indicates that Central Union Mission will again seek use of the Gales School through the latest RFO, but it does not sound optimistic.

The Request for Offers is being handled by the District's Office of Real Estate Services (ORES), which will host a pre-submission meeting and site visit on January 29.  Offers are due on February 16.  According to the RFO:

The District’s overarching goal in issuing this RFP is to obtain Proposals for the Use Site for the sole permitted use as a homeless shelter. Responses proposing any other use for the Use Site will be deemed nonresponsive and will not be considered. . . . [T]he District seeks Responses from interested qualified respondents who can demonstrate:
• Viable approach for the delivery of homeless shelter services at the Use Site;
• Organizational capacity and experience to redevelop the Use Site for use as a homeless shelter;
• Successful track record of operating a high quality homeless shelter and service program;
• Financial capacity to provide requisite program financing including the costs and expenses associated with the rehabilitation of the Use Site; and
• Commitment to the District’s goal of creating the contracting and investment opportunities for local, small and disadvantaged businesses, and jobs for District residents.

Vacant or Blighted?

The DC Council is holding a hearing on two vacant/blighted property bills this Wednesday.  The hearing will be held at 2pm in room 412 of the Wilson Building at 14th and Pennsylvania Avenue NW. The Hearing Notice recognizes:

The higher tax on vacant properties had the desired effect of moving many longstanding vacant properties into productive use.  Since 2006, over 1,000 formerly vacant properties have become occupied.  However, as the economy entered a prolonged recession, the vacant property tax began to affect more and more property owners, many who had simply run into hard times due to the economy.... 

Last year, the D.C. Council eliminated the vacant property tax - a result of backlash from the same Councilmembers doubling the tax from $5 to $10, the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs more consistent enforcement of the law, the occasional innocent owner unfairly getting hit with the higher tax, and the recession (and its impact on developers with properties in limbo). Instead, the Council kept a registration system for vacant property and applied a higher tax only to "blighted properties." Due to confusion in the new law as to how the old vacant property registration system and new "blighted" property tax work together, the Council will consider these two competing proposals.

Here is my understanding of the two bills:

• B18-546 [PDF]: Introduced by Councilmember Muriel Bowser (D-Ward 4), it would keep the vacant property registration system, eliminate the exemptions (which only eliminate the need to pay a nominal registration fee), allow for an upward sliding scale for registration fee depending on amount of time property is vacant, simplify the citation issuance process, and require property insurance for vacant properties.

• B18-448 [PDF], introduced by Councilmember Jack Evans, would eliminate the remaining vacant property registration system altogether and focus only on blighted determination.  This bill does not appear to be subject to the Wednesday hearing.  (Note: The hearing notice refers to B18-407, but this appears to be a misprint)

The Bowser bill is helpful, if not ideal.  On the other hand, the Evans bill would dump all the work DCRA and the Shaw and Mt. Vernon communities, as well as others across this city, have done over the past few years to form an accurate list of vacant properties. Even without a vacant property tax, this list allows DCRA to closely monitor these properties for violations (litter/dumping, overgrown grass, unsecured, illegal billboards, as well as criminal activity) and determine whether they are "blighted."

Ideally, the Council should return to something closer to the prior vacant property tax system. Here are seven reasons why:

1. Subjecting only "blighted" and not vacant properties to a higher tax fails to recognize that even vacant properties that are in the best of condition impose additional costs on the surrounding community. The neighbors are often the ones that pick up the trash that inevitably accumulates, shovels the snow, and calls in or paint over graffiti. Blocks with vacant property are less safe because there are less eyes on the street to report crime.
2. It is much easier to determine whether a property is vacant (objective standard - is there a lease, utilities running?) than whether a property is "blighted" (very subjective - one person's blight may be another person's palace). DCRA/OTR can expect appeals and lawsuits when it attempts to impose the tax on blighted properties;
3. Some properties may be judged as not meeting the "blighted" standard because the neighbors, not the owners, addressed problems -- i.e. cut overgrown grass, removed graffiti, and secured the property.  Why should the owner benefit through reduced taxes?;
4. What will happen when a property is "blighted" because it is a nuisance for months or years and when threatened with a higher tax, the owner nominally fixes it up to avoid the tax (i.e. picks up the trash and throws on a coat of paint) -- this would be an ongoing cycle;
5. The blighted property law applies only to "improved properties" (vacant houses or stores) and not to vacant lots. Why should an overgrown, trashed vacant lot not be subject to the the higher tax while an overgrown, trashed lot that has an empty building on it get the tax?;
6. Under current law, if a historic property is blighted and allowed to collapse through neglect, the owner would be rewarded because he or she would no longer subject to the blighted property tax; and
   
7. Why, oh why, would the Council give absentee property owners a $48.9 million tax break when the city is struggling with a budget shortfall and cutting valuable services?
   

Instead, the city should return to something closer to the old system -- a $5 (or even $2.50) tax on vacant property, graduated increases in the tax (not the registration fee) the longer the property remains vacant (say going up to $10 only if a property is vacant for 10 years), and use of currently available fines and the condemnation process to address "blighted" properties.

Exceptions to the vacant property tax should apply only to specific circumstances in which there is unfairness.  For instance, similar to jury duty, a person who is serving in the military oversees or in a nursing home should be exempted from the higher tax. There should be no nonsense with property owners being able to avoid the tax by periodically pretending their property is for sale or obtaining permits for minor work on the property.

Finally, it is important that the city restore application of the higher tax to vacant lots, in addition to vacant buildings.

Residents should testify on Wednesday on their experiences with vacant property and the importance of providing effective incentives for absentee property owners to put properties back into productive use.

Survey Results: Franklin School

Residents overwhelmingly favor putting the historic Franklin School to an educational, rather than a private, use, according to my unscientific online public survey. 

Of 136 respondents, 79% favored an educational use for Franklin.  Less than 1 in 4 (22%) would rather see the building in private hands.  Four percent supported using the building for a public, but not education-related, purpose.

Of those that support an educational use for the building, more than half (58%) favor using Franklin School to house public charter schools that are in need of space.  The remainder split among preferring a downtown community college campus (17%), magnet high school (12%), or innovative elementary school (9%).  Only a handful advocated for using the building as space for college "semester in DC" or internship-type programs (4%).

Since the District of Columbia published a Request for Proposals seeking potential uses for the Franklin School that is geared toward private development, a Coalition has emerged to advocate that the city rewrite the RFP and reopen the process to give fair consideration to public uses.  Proposals that would restore the historic building's educational purpose for which it was designed should receive a strong preference.

Yesterday, the deadline expired for submitting proposals.  Unless the city reverses course, it is likely that the Franklin School will be awarded to a private (and politically-connected) developer on a long-term lease (i.e. 99 years), possibly at a substantial discount compared to the value of other core downtown properties, to construct a boutique hotel.

At first glance, it appears that the public property disposition law recently enacted by the D.C. Council would not require additional Council hearings regarding the whether the property should be declared surplus and used for private development.  The legislation became law without Mayor Adrian Fenty's signature when his review period expired on January 14, 2010 and now awaits the 30-day Congressional review period before it takes effect.  Even if applicable to the ongoing RFP-process for Franklin, the law's new safeguards that require the DC Council to assess and determine, after considering public comment, whether a public property is no longer required for public use before putting it into private hands, appear to apply only to outright sale of public property.  Although the originally introduced bill applied to long-term sales, the bill was watered down before it passed.  A 99-year lease, however, should be regarded as a constructive sale.

In any event, at a very minimum, the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (DMPED) should fully disclose the responses that it has received for the Franklin School and provide public hearings to discuss the potential options.

Supporting Martin

Meet your neighbors and help Martin Moulton Tuesday, January 19 6 p.m. - 8 p.m. Long View Gallery 1234 Ninth Street NW Friends and supporters of Shaw neighborhood activist and leader Martin Moulton are coming together to help raise funds to pay Martin's legal fees, helping him defend against recent legal actions taken by Leroy Thorpe. Here's a link to recent developments or you can review the official legal docket (Case No. 09 CA 007215) by searching "Leroy Thorpe" here. Please make checks payable to "Harmon Curran" (the law firm representing Martin) and include "Martin Moulton Legal Fees" on the note line at the bottom of your check. Thank you for your consideration and we hope you will join us. Host Committee (in formation): Kari and Jason Beard, Ralph Brabham and Drew Porterfield, Frances Evangelista, Mike Gormley, Miles E. Groves, Suzi Molak, The Hon. Alex Padro, Cary Silverman, Stephanie Slewka, Charles Walker, William Waybourn, Deborah Ziska. Please phone 202.518.2453 for more information or RSVP by January 16. If you are unable to attend the event, you can still support Martin’s legal defense by sending a check payable to “Harmon Curran" (the law firm representing Martin), at 1726 M Street NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036 .  Please include "Martin Moulton Legal Fees" on the note line at the bottom of your check.  Any amount helps and is appreciated.

Latest Crime Bill - What it Includes...

On Tuesday, Councilmembers Jim Graham (D-Ward 1) and Jack Evans (D-Ward 2) introduced the “Neighborhood and Victims Rights Amendment Act of 2009" [PDF].  The legislation:

• Provides mandatory minimums for gun crimes by gang members (3 years possession, 10 years use);
• Expands current law allowing the ability obtain a court order prohibiting public nuisances;
• Recommends establishment of a "gun court" to quickly address such offenses;
• Provides for consideration of "community impact statements" during sentencing;
• Amends a District law that permits MPD to impound vehicles used in prostitution;
• Provides for criminal background checks of alcoholic beverage license applicants;
• Includes new penalties for PCP-related offenses and driving under the influence of PCP; and
• Includes various protections for crime victims and witnesses, such as a right to know the status of the case; information related to any stay-away orders, pleas, releases, probation, or other placement; and protection from adverse employment action when attending court proceedings or meeting with law enforcement.

A more detailed summary follows this post below.

In the District, which has about four times as much violent crime as New York City, it is not uncommon for individuals to be arrested ten, fifteen, even twenty times for serious offenses, such as gun possession, robbery, burglary, car theft, possession of drugs with intent to distribute, and, even murder, and nevertheless remain on the street.

Councilmember Mendelson, who chairs the Council's Committee on Public Safety and Judiciary, believes that the city needs closer study as to the reasons behind this "revolving door."  How much of this situation stems from "no-papering" due to lack of evidence or other factors, plea bargains, court rulings, jury verdicts, or sentencing?  How much accountablility lies with police officers, detectives, prosecutors, and judges?  How much lies with weaknesses in the District's laws?

If the District lacks critical data as to the source of the problem, as Mendelson suggests, then such a study should be included among the bill's provisions so that the city can better target areas of the criminal justice system for future improvement.  It is not a replacement or excuse, however, for delay or inaction in providing the tools included in the legislation to fight the current violence.

Overall, the bill appears to be a positive step forward.  There are some legitimate questions such as how would the court determine a defendant is a "member of a criminal street gang" subject to mandatory minimums for gun offenses, how significant of an expansion of the current nuisance law is the proposal, would the new gun court require additional funding from Congress, don't courts already consider community impact statements, and why hasn't MPD used the prostitution-related impoundment law since it was amended by the Council to address constitutional issues in 2006?

Mendelson should schedule a hearing on the bill in early 2010 and give the Graham/Evans proposal full and fair consideration.

Billboards Fall!

And the citizens said, "Director Argo, take down these billboards!"  And, this morning, residents ran out onto the streets to watch them fall, all four of them, at New Jersey Avenue and P Streets NW (and shared their observations via e-mail).

Neighborhood activists and ordinary citizens, working with the District's Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, should be proud.  The process demonstrates DCRA's commitment to address quality of life issues in our neighborhoods, even when they might seem relatively small to some.

A bit of background.  Residents of the Shaw neighborhood, including the Bates Area Civic Association pleaded with DCRA to seek removal of what appeared to be illegal billboards at NJ and P.  Not only were they unsightly, but the large vacant lot lent itself to dumping, littering, drug dealing, and other crime.  The billboards contributed to blight and lowered property values in the neighborhood.  Residents longed to see housing, a park, anything at the prominent corner location.  Even a dedicated website emerged.

While DC law has long banned billboards, some were allowed over the years.  Additional regulations made clear that billboards were not permitted near residential buildings.  Records dating prior to Home Rule, however, were misplaced.  City regulations changed repeatedly and their retroactive application to previously permitted billboards was apparently arguable. 

Nevertheless, these billboards and many others across the city, remained in plain site.  Many provided a source of income for derelict owners of vacant lots, parking lots, used car dealerships, and liquor stores.

The Mount Vernon Square Neighborhood Association chimed in and urged DCRA to remove billboards at several locations in its neighborhood and review the issue citywide.  To its credit, DCRA promptly announced that it would begin enforcement of the billboard law.  Given missing records and conflicting regulations, enforcement posed a challenge.  DCRA commited itself to fixing the situation and, eventually, at least three sets of billboards came down over the past several months.

The billboards at New Jersey and P Streets NW, however, led to a fight.  They are owned by Clear Channel, which had a permit dating back several decades and they sought and obtained an court injunction prohibiting their removal.  In the midst of the legal strangling, the situation took an odd turn when another District agency, the Department of Health, placed a public service ad on one of the billboards.  To avoid an expensive legal fight, last week, DCRA promulgated emergency regulations to address the issue.  That seemed to get Clear Channel's attention. 

According to DCRA Director Linda Argo:

The District has reached a settlement agreement with Clear Channel regarding their four billboards at 4th and P Street, NW and additional billboard at 3rd and K Street, NE.

The agreement calls for Clear Channel to begin removing the billboards today, Tuesday, December 15, and to completely remove the billboards no later than Monday, December 21. Clear Channel will then remove any supporting posts for the billboards by December 31.

I’m thrilled we’ve reached this amicable settlement with Clear Channel and want to express my gratitude for the community’s invaluable assistance in these efforts.

Just fifteen minutes after receiving Director Argo's e-mail, Richard Dane Norwood, Ward 5 Coordinator for the Mayor's Office of Community Relations and Services reported that removal was underway.

Congratulations to the community for its hard work and to DCRA (as well as the Attorney General's Office) for following through on their commitment and delivering an early holiday gift to the neighborhood.  Let's hope to see the lot put toward a beneficial and productive use in 2010!

UPDATE: More photos and commentary from the Prince of Petworth as well as video from the Bates Area Civic Association. Also Washington Business Journal, Examiner (via BACA blog), and DC Wire coverage.

Gone, but not forgotten, in 2009 (from top to bottom): 7th and L Streets, NJ Avenue & P Street, and the 300 Block of New York Avenue NW.

Car Sharing to Expand

Residents may be interested to learn that the the District Department of Transportation Office of Zoning will hold a public hearing next Monday, December 21, regarding new regulations for Zipcar and, I assume, other car sharing companies, to operate beyond downtown and in residential neighborhoods.  Zipcar

Here is a blurb from Zipcar, which received the 2009 Mayor's Environmental Excellence Award for Outstanding Achievement for Innovation in Green Products or Services.

Over the past few months, we've been working tirelessly with DDOT and the DCRA to adjust the zoning regulations as they pertain to some of the home locations for our Zipcars. The new regulations would officially allow Zipcar to conduct business in residential areas of the District. That means we'll be able to continue parking your beloved neighborhood car in the alley behind your house. However, there's still one last step, and for that we need your help.

On Monday, December 21 at 6:30pm at 441 4th Street NW Suite 220 South, there will be a public hearing for citizens to vocalize their support for the new regulations. We would love it if you could stop by to share a story or two about what Zipcar means to you. As a token of our thanks, we'll be handing out Zipcar t-shirts so you can show your pride during the meeting.

If you think you might be able to make it, send a quick email to rsvpdc@zipcar.com to let us know.

Thanks again for being a Zipster, and we hope to see you soon.

If you would like to provide some "information sharing" for readers on the proposed regulations, which I have not located online, please do!

A Frank Discussion on Crime

Last month, a post on this blog led with a quote by Councilmember Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), who chairs the D.C. Council's Committee on Public Safety and Judiciary, "Violence in Shaw is not a legislative problem."  Last night, Mendelson, to his credit, came out to the that neighborhood to explain his view, discuss what he has done and continues to do to address crime, and respond to the safety concerns of his constituents.

Mendelson began by sharing two actual case studies.

Person A, age 60, has been arrested 26 times (19 as an adult and 7 as a juvenile) for 2 stolen autos, 1 robbery, 2 for carrying a gun, and 5 for drug dealing while armed.  He was most recently charged and found guilty of carrying a gun in May 2009.  Of the 26 arrests, there were only 3 guilty verdicts and 2 not-guilty.  The rest were dismissed or "no papered."

Person B, age 27, has been arrested 20 times (19 as an adult and 1 as a juvenile) for murder, 2 assault with a deadly weapon, a carrying a gun, and 8 for drug dealing.  Most recently, he was arrested for 1st degree murder (in January 2008, but dismissed by the U.S. Attorneys Office).  Of the 20 arrests, he was found guilty on 2 and not-guilty on 2.  The rest were dismissed or no papered.  

One might assume both of these fellas are doing hard time.  No.  Person A was sentenced to 12 months after being caught with a gun, all time suspended.  The U.S. Attorneys Office dismissed 1st degree murder charge against Person B.  Apparently, two of Bs brothers pleaded to 2nd degree murder.  In other words, A and B are walking the street today.  They are likely armed and dangerous.

Mendelson's Exhibit A was intended to show that the Council can pass law after law without solving the revolving door problem, which may lie with shoddy evidence, plea bargains, poor prosecutorial discretion, or judicial rulings and sentencing.

Not everyone saw it that way. 

"This is an embarrassment - you should be ashamed," a resident of the 1200 Block of 7th Street  repeatedly stated. 

The resident, who has had three shootings on his block in the few months he has lived in the neighborhood, noted that he holds the members of the Council and the Mayor responsible. 

Why?  Because when he goes to the polls, those are the names on the ballot -- not the prosecutors or judges.  "It is the Council that is responsible for running the city, structuring the criminal justice system, and holding police, prosecutors, and judges accountable," he exclaimed. 

Therein lies the rub. 

The District's quasi federal-city status leaves it in a situation where major crimes are prosecuted by the U.S. Attorneys Office (federal), not the D.C. Attorney General or the District Attorney that we do not have.  There's no requirement that the U.S. Attorney or federal prosecutors live in the District.  Judges are appointed by the President of the United States to 15-year terms, not the Mayor.  They can come from anywhere in the country. 

While representatives of the U.S. Attorneys Office frequently testify on legislative proposals before the D.C. Council, there is no true city oversight of its prosecutors or its courts.  The city makes the laws and polices the city, but it is left out of the final steps of the process - bringing charges, prosecuting cases, and sentencing. 

Mendelson's Exhibit B was a list of 33 pieces of legislation passed by the Committee on Public Safety and Judiciary during the four years he has served as chair.  He offered it to show that he does, indeed, in some cases, believe crime is a legislative issue.  Generally, the list was not compelling.  It included a dozen bills  unrelated to the type of violent crime of concern in Shaw and many other communities, such as white collar insurance fraud, dishonored checks, animal cruelty, and littering.  It also included items that have little to do with crime at all, such as a bill to improve jury service (which I testified on).  That's not to say that some of the omnibus bills that ultimately passed have no teeth.  I'm sure some provisions have made a difference.

There was plenty of finger pointing, but on to some of the highlights of some proposals:

Loitering.  Mendelson committed to looking at a Chicago-style anti-loitering ordinance, moving away from his longstanding opposition to such laws as a violation of liberty.  His commitment came in response to the type of situation raised by a resident in which a group continuously hangs out on his corner.  Public drinking quickly escalates to fist-fighting, then to shootings.  If the police would get involved earlier and ask them to move on, then the violence might be avoided.   In order for such laws to be constitution, Mendelson believed, they must be limited in area and duration.  Some residents, however, find 5 and 10 day drug-free zone type laws just silly.  Why isn't it always a crime-free zone, they ask.  As an alternative, I suggested to Mendelson that rather than an arbitrary 5 or 10 day period that requires significant MPD paperwork to obtain, that the Council grant the police enhanced power to address loitering at any location in which there has been X calls for service to 911, Y arrests for guns/drugs, or Z reports of gunfire through Shotspotter within the past month for the following month.

Safe Passage to School Law.  Mendelson recently sponsored this bill with the support of all members of the Council. It will create a no loitering zone in posted areas around schools. In response, DC Attorney General Peter Nickes, however, said the safe passage bill is "not an effective way to deal with ... the real problems." "I think it's halfhearted, ineffective and has legal problems," Nickles told The Examiner.

Civil Gang Injunctions.  Mendelson continues to feel they are counterproductive.  Councilmember Jack Evans (D-Ward 2) supports them, at least on a trial basis in Ward 2.  Today, Evans who participated in the forum, will introduce a bill that again proposes such a measure, as well as a new gun court and nuisance law (anti-loitering).

Funding Gang Intervention Groups, such as the Peacaholics and Alliance of Concerned Men.  Mendelson commented that the District has given too much money to such programs without adequate performance measures.  While these groups may do a lot of good, I wholeheartedly agree that accountability for public funds is sorely lacking.  Taxpayers (and the Council) need to know how the money is spent and what results are achieved to understand whether the city would more effectively spend such funds on job training programs, extended recreation center hours, or mentoring programs, or more police officers.

Deputy Mayor for Public Safety.  Mendelson criticized Mayor Adrian Fenty's elimination of the position of Deputy Mayor for Public Safety, which was established under Mayor Williams.  That position, Mendelson commented, coordinated efforts between the federal and city governments and forced them to sit down at the table and communicate.

Addressing the revolving door.  While almost everyone seems to acknowledge that violent criminals get arrested repeatedly and remain on the streets (the representative of the U.S. Attorneys Office seemed to be the only one who took issue with this representation), no one can put their finger on WHY?  What happens after arrest is "amazingly opaque," said Mendelson.  While citizens (and policy makers) can, at the touch of their laptops, pull up data for an area on arrests, calls for service, and shots fired, what happens after an arrest is a mystery.  What percentage of arrests are "no papered?"  Is that a result of shoddy police practices, lack of evidence, or some other reason?  How many of those arrested for 1st degree murder actually serve the "mandatory" minimum already set by the Council?  What percentage of those arrested are charged with a lesser offense or released because of a plea deal?  Where does the responsibility lie and how can lawmakers, prosecutors and judges improve the criminal justice system?  I suggested that if the District lacks needed data to back sound public policy decisions with respect to crime, it ought to establish an agency/office such as the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics to track local arrests, prosecutions, and sentencing.  Mendelson seemed supportive of that idea.  He suggested that he may seek funding from the DC Council and speak with Evans about it.

Why is DC so different?  Borderstan questioned why DC’s murder rate is 4.56 times higher than that of New York City, noting that other crimes follow the same pattern.  While DC has made progress in recent years, it remains leaps and bounds away from other major cities with respect to the prevalence of violent crime.  There was no explanation offered.

What's the U.S. Attorneys Office going to do differently?  In a terse exchange, Evans demanded that a representative of the U.S. Attorneys Office, Albert Herring, answer this question in light of the community's frustration.  There's was no response -- other than, "we prosecute crimes to the fullest extent of the law...."

Home Rule.  Evans noted that both he and Mendelson support the District gaining control over its courts.  It would cost $120 million annually.  While such a proposal was considered (and died in Congress) years ago, the Council and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton have not pushed such a proposal under the Obama Administration and a Democratic Congress.  There was no discussion of whether they support establishing an elected District Attorney or additional Home Rule with respect to prosecution of cases.

So, what did the meeting accomplish? 

Mendelson seems closer to lending his support to a broader anti-loitering law, has already backed a school-zone loitering law, and wants funding to examine the District's revolving door. 

Evans has an anti-gang bill due out today, which Mendelson should give a timely hearing and fair consideration. 

Mendelson and the U.S. Attorneys Office both got an earful.  One can hope that what they heard will add vigor to their efforts and give them helpful perspective in their decisionmaking.