Evans Emerges Unscathed, More Powerful

DC Wire reports today that the new Council Chairman, Kwame Brown, has replaced Jack Evans (Ward 2) as Chair Pro Tem with Councilmember Mary Cheh (Ward 3), a largely ceremonial position that Evans, as the longest serving member, has held for 12 years.  One might think that loss of the #2 title marks a power shift, since Evans supported Fenty while Brown and Cheh supported Gray in his mayoral bid.  Evans himself mulled over running against Brown for Chair.  While Evans did not get take an official position in the race after he bowed out, Evans' former campaign and council communication director, Sean Metcalf, led Vincent Oranges' campaign for the position.

But Brown has apparently named Evans as co-chair of the committee that will oversee redistricting in the wake of the 2010 census, along with At-large Councilmember Michael Brown.  Ward 2, as an area of the city that experienced a modest increase in population, could lose some of its territory to shrinking Ward 1 or gain back some area of quickly growing Ward 6.  As chair of the Committee, Evans will be in a position to ensure that his new boundaries, and future electability, are to his liking.  Brown also gave Evans oversight over the Washington Convention and Sports Authority, and he will continue to chair the powerful Committee on Finance and Revenue, the equivalent to Congress's Appropriations Committee.

The Post suggests that in giving Evans power over redistricting and WCSA, Brown gave him "an apparent consolation prize" for losing chair pro tem, which it calls a "stinging setback."  So wrong.

Continued chairmanship of Finance, added oversight of WCSA (the sports issues Evans absolutely loves -- can we build another stadium for the Redskins right now?), and he gets to redraw the political boundaries throughout the city in his favor (and bank political IOUs from his colleagues) in exchange for giving up a ceremonial title?  Sounds more like Cheh received a small reward for her risk in supporting Gray in predominantly pro-Fenty Ward 3, and Evans, from whom Kwame will want support to effectively lead the Council, got a coup. 

Also noted by the Post is that Councilmember Tommy Wells (Ward 6) will take oversight of WMATA, replacing Councilmember Jim Graham.  It's a somewhat thankless position that is shared with representatives from Maryland, Virginia, and the federal government, but obviously a very important one.  Councilmember Michael Brown, who has missed at least 52 board meetings since appointed, will apparently continue to serve as the other DC member.

Bogus Charge?: Thomas Accused of Running Fake Nonprofit

Today's Washington Post includes reports on the back of the Metro page that Ward 5 Councilmember Harry Thomas has been accused of his Republican opponent of running a fake nonprofit, Team Thomas/SwingAway LLC, for his own "slush fund."

I'm no fan of Harry Thomas, but these charges by Tim Day, an accountant who is challenging Thomas in the Nov. 2 general election, strike me as supreme B.S.  Day's evidence:

• Thomas's organization is not registered as a 501(c)(3) with the IRS.  As an accountant, Day should probably not make the common error of confusing a nonprofit with a 501(c)(3).  "Nonprofit" is just a type of incorporation, which is registered with a state/DC government.  Nonprofits are not necessarily 501(c)(3)s, to which individuals can make tax deductible donations.  To become a 501(c)(3), a nonprofit must go through what can be a lengthy process with the IRS and agree to certain restrictions and reporting requirements.
• Thomas's organization has not disclosed who donated to the organization and how the money has been spent.  So what?  Nonprofit organizations, like for-profit companies, have no obligation to publish their financial records to the world.  As a 501(c)(3), the organization would have to provide limited information in public filings, including how much was raised (but not the identity of donors), the salaries of top employees, and payments to largest contractors.  But Thomas's organization is not a 501(c)(3).
• Thomas's organization is not in good standing with the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs.  Join the club.  There are lots of small nonprofits organizations, that largely rely on volunteers, who overlook submitting paperwork and later correct it.  It's not as a crime.
• And just to throw it in -- Day makes an unrelated accusation that Thomas's wife worked on his campaign and received a $4,500 fee as a consultant.  Another big "so what," particularly if she provided services to the campaign designing leaflets and brochure or otherwise.  It may be poor judgment to pay family members from campaign funds, but I'm missing the illegality or corruption.

Well, I guess Mr. Day got his day in the Post.  But his charges seem to hardly warrant even a back-page story.  A blog post... maybe.

Election Day: Still Undecided?

Still undecided?  Here's my picks and the endorsements of some of the local papers.  Click the name to pull up the full endorsement.  

	My Picks	Post	Examiner	Current	Intowner	CityPaper
Mayor	Fenty	Fenty	Fenty	Gray	Gray	Fenty
Chairman	Brown	Orange	Brown	Brown	Brown	Orange
At-Large	Ray	No endorsement		Mendelson	Mendelson	Mendelson
Ward 1	Graham	Graham		Graham	Graham	Weaver
Ward 3	Cheh					Cheh
Ward 5	Not Thomas	Hunter				McDuffie
Ward 6	Wells	Wells				Wells
U.S. Congress	Sloan	Norton		Norton		Norton

And the nominees are...

At 5pm on Wednesday, the deadline expired for filing nominating petitions, petition supplements, and Declaration of Candidacy and Affirmation of Qualifications with the DC Board of Elections for the September 14, 2010 primary.  And the Democratic candidates are....

Seven of the thirteen candidates who picked up nominating petitions to run for mayor actually filed.  In addition to incumbent Mayor Adrian Fenty and Council Chairperson Vince Gray, other candidates for mayor include former reporter Leo Alexander, Whitehouse party crasher Carlos Allen, Sulaimon Brown, Michael T. Green, and Ernest Johnson.  In a very tight race between Fenty and Gray, could these challengers pull away enough votes to effect the outcome?  Should DC require runoff elections where no candidate receives 50% of the vote?

In addition to Kwame Brown and Vincent Orange, Dorothy Douglas and Calvin Gurley are also running for DC Council Chairperson.  I've seen a few signs up for Calvin Gurley, who lives in Takoma Park.  He apparently pushed for a voting initiative he entitled the "Mr. Bill Cosby’s Age 18 House Rule" in 2004, which would have cut off a parents' obligation to make child support payments at 18, rather than 21.  Dorothy Douglas is an activist who lives in Deanwood and is currently a member of the State Board of Education.

At Large Councilmember Phil Mendelson faces a strong challenge from former Parks and Rec Director Clark Ray.  Two others, Will Rossand and Michael Brown, are running.  Michael Brown?  I'm confused.  Is another Michael Brown seeking a seat on the Council?  Yes, it is Michael D. Brown, the District's "Shadow Senator." (the current at-large member, Michael A. Brown, obtained the seat as an independent and is not up for reelection until 2012).  New rule: 2 Browns on the Council is enough, and if Gray and Orange get elected... we'll probably have the more colorful legislative body in the nation.

In Ward 1, incumbent Jim Graham, a popular councilmember who has nevertheless been plagued with controversies from limiting the hours of Jumbo Slice to his chief of staff being indicted for excepting bribes from the taxi cab industry, faces two challengers: Jeff Smith and Bryan Weaver.

Ward 3 Councilmember Mary Cheh, after completing her first term, is unopposed.  Seems that folks on the western side of town like her focus on healthy foods and animal rights, and her tough talk to Attorney General Peter Nickles.

Ward 5 Councilmember Harry Thomas, also a first term councilmember who replaced Vincent Orange after he decided to run for Mayor, faces four opponents: Kathy Henderson, a former Historic Preservation Review Board Member and ANC Commissioner; Delano Hunter; Kenyan McDuffie, and Tracey D. Turner.  I'm disappointed to see that George “Action” Jackson did not file his nominating petition.  You know what they say... all talk...

Ward 6 Councilmember Tommy Wells faces two opponents - Randy Brown and Kelvin Robinson.

Finally, Congressional Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton faces a challenge from Douglas Sloan.  After ten terms in office and the most recent failure of voting rights for the District in Congress, will residents opt for new blood?

These aren't necessarily the people you'll see on the September ballot.  The Board will make a preliminary determination of their eligibility this Monday, July 12 and consider any challenges to petitions until August 3.

Education: When everyone is in charge... no one is in charge

A core element of Mayoral Candidate Vince Gray's education platform is to strengthen the position of Deputy Mayor for Education.  As he's described at public forums, Gray envisions the position as coordinating education policy for the District, dealing with such elements as public schools, charter schools, the University of the District of Columbia (which has a law school and new community college), vocational training programs, literacy training, among other areas.

But where was such coordination on the D.C. Council?

Just about every state legislature in the country, as well as Congress and most city governments, has an committee charged with addressing education issues.  Not DC.

For many years, the DC Council had a Committee on Education, Libraries and Recreation.  Before running for the Ward 4 seat on the DC Council, now-Mayor Adrian Fenty did a 2-year stint as the lead attorney and counsel for the Committee. 

Immediately after he was elected as Chairman of the Council, Gray eliminated the Committee in 2007.  Instead, deeming education issues too important to be discussed by a five-member committee, Gray placed education in the Committee of the Whole.  The Committee of the Whole is precisely what it is named -- the full council, led by the Chairman of the Council.

"I think it sends the message to the city, for the council, too, that education is the key issue. I had eight council members to ask to be on the education committee," Gray said. "This is an opportunity for everybody to participate. It takes a layer out of the process."

But there's a flip side.  When everyone is in charge... no one is in charge.  That's part of the reason why the District has consolidated much of the power over education reform in a Chancellor rather than in a large school board.

There is a value to smaller committees.  They allow Councilmembers to develop expertise on an issue, which can be helpful in developing legislation and providing effective oversight.  Committee members build relationships with the executive branch officials, organizations, community activists, and those affected (in this case, teachers, administrators, and students).  Committees permit greater dialogue among their members.  Those who serve on the Committee become points of contact for the public as well as people to hold accountable.  And yes, it facilitates coordination of policy.

What are the positions of the candidates for DC Council Chairman, Kwame Brown and Vincent Orange?  Would they bring back an education committee or keep it in the Committee of the Whole? 

Is a Committee on Education (including literacy) and Workforce Development in the works for 2011?

ZC Nominee: Stan Wall

Last night, a nominee to the Zoning Commission, Stan Wall, introduced himself to the Federation of Citizens Associations and took questions. 

The Zoning Commission is an independent, quasi-judicial body charged with preparing, adopting, and subsequently amending the Zoning Regulations and Zoning Map in a means not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital area. It regulates the height, area, and use of buildings in the District of Columbia.  Three members of the ZC are residents of the District of Columbia appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Council. The fourth member of the ZC is the Architect of the Capitol (or his/her representative). The fifth ZC member is the Director of the National Park Service (or his/her representative).

Wall would replace Anthony Hood, the current chairman, whose term expired four months ago, and serve until 2014.  Hood is a civic activist, who, in addition to his job at the EPA, serves as President of the Woodridge Civic Association and the Woodridge Civic Fund, on the Board of Directors of the Bryant Park Homeowners Association, and as a Member of MPD's 5th District's Citizens Advisory Council.

Some DC residents have raised concern that, with Hood's replacement, the Zoning Commission's resident members will be composed of developers who have an inherent interest in higher, more concentrated development.

Profession: Consultant on projects in DC and surrounding jurisdictions.  Self employed.  The Wall Development Group's clients are primarily federal and local government entities.
Educational background: Engineering (BA Penn State) and project finance/business (MBA, UPenn).
Is he a zoning lawyer?  No.
Is he developer?  Yes, but he has not developed anything.
Is he a member of any fraternity in which the Mayor is also a member?  No.
Why was he nominated?  On the basis of his consulting work with the District and other jurisdictions.
Did he receive "marching orders" from the Administration? No.
Where does he live?  He lived in many areas of DC; currently, he is a Ward 6 resident on H Street NE - though his nomination resolution provides a West End address at 2501 K Street NW.
When is his confirmation hearing before the Council: Initially, it was scheduled for earlier this month.  The hearing was postponed until June 29 due to community concerns.
What role do you see for the Comprehensive Plan in your decisionmaking?  It would be the first document I would look to.
Is the Zoning Commission position paid?  No.  It receives a nominal ($25) stipend per meeting attended.
How will you have the time?  As a self-employed person, his schedule is flexible.
Demeanor: Extremely soft spoken.  Good thing they have mics on the Zoning Commission dais.
Resume: Available here.
Questions?   E-mail Stan Wall.

This City Owes You!

On Friday, posters for Calvin Gurley, candidate for Chairman of the D.C. Council, appeared on lampposts throughout downtown. He is apparently attempting to present an alternative to frontrunner at-large Councilmember Kwame Brown and former Ward 5 Councilmember Vincent Orange. Merits of his platform aside, Gurley's slogan, "This City Owes YOU," struck me as quite odd. The city did owe me, but I finally received my tax refund about a month ago. It reminded me of when a resident, in his mid-thirties, emphatically demanded that Councilmember Jack Evans (D-Ward 2) provide him with a big screen TV to watch at the Kennedy Recreation Center. "This city owes you" seems to be a message that responsible city leaders should not send.

Welcome back, vacant property tax!

According to the Washington Business Journal, the vacant property tax is back.  That's good news for those who live in neighborhoods inundated properties that have sat vacant for many years and are often under assessed.

Last night, the budget adopted by the DC Council restored the vacant property tax at the rate - $5 per $100 of assessed value - that was in effect prior to 2008, when the DC Council, in an election year, doubled it to $10 and eliminated most exemptions.  That change, combined with increased enforcement by the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA), led to push back that ultimately led to the demise of the tax.  It was replaced with a "blighted" property tax that basically only applied to houses that were already subject to condemnation and applied only to about 2% of the vacant properties previously subject to the higher rate.

Questions remain as to whether the final adopted Budget Support Act also restored some of the most frequently abused exceptions (such as those that allowed owners to evade the tax by obtaining a permit for the most minor work or placing a "for sale" sign on the property) and whether the tax will apply to both vacant lots and "improved" properties (houses and stores).  Vacant lots had been removed from the "blighted" property tax, a strange distinction since vacant lots can be an even greater magnet for crime, dumping, loitering, and litter, as empty homes.  Also unknown at this time is when the vacant property tax will be back in effect.

[As a side note, I'm still waiting for the day that the D.C. government provides its citizens with a legislative monitoring system that allows us to accurately view the status of legislation, amendments, and the final version of passed laws in something approaching real time.  Nearly every state promptly makes such information available to the public.]

What Does $8 Million in City Funds Buy?

The Washington Post reports today that Peacoholics co-founder Ron Moten has established an anti-Vince Gray website, http://vincegray.info, aka "The Gray Files."  The website attempts to cast a cloud over the current Council Chairman and mayoral candidate's ethics and service. 

[UPDATE 5/17]: Dorothy Brizill reports in The Mail that Moten and Peacoholics cofounder Juahar Abraham "brought a large number of young people" to the Ward 8 Democrats Mayoral Election Straw Poll held Saturday. "Although most of these young people were not registered voters prior to the forum, the insisted on being allowed to register at the forum and to cast challenged ballots. Outside the church, the young people bragged about how they had been paid $100 to attend the forum."  In the initial tabulation, Gray received 59 votes to Fenty's 49.  After the challenged ballots were added, the result flipped to Fenty 69, Gray 61.

Peacoholics reportedly received $8 million from the DC government during the Fenty Administration, even more than the $4.5 million documented here.  The DC Council, chaired by Gray, finally cut off the faucet (spurred by an investigation related to Marion Barry's earmarks to organizations that he set up and to a girlfriend).  That ultimately led to a downsizing of Peacoholics.  Ah, dirty politics at its worst.

No Evans for Chair

Councilmember Jack Evans (D-Ward 2) revealed on Friday's Kojo Nnamdi Show that he is "probably unlikely to run" for DC Council Chairman after all. Video above. Also DC Wire.

Doesn't Pay to Keep Property Vacant

The Washington Business Journal reports today that Mayor Fenty is on board with a system of steep graduated registration fees for vacant houses and commercial properties in the District:

The existing vacant property registration fee is $20 per residential unit or $20 per 400 square feet of commercial space. Fenty proposes to charge $250 the first year, $500 for the first renewal year, $1,000 the second, $2,500 the third and $5,000 the fourth.

According to a District spokesperson, the revenue from the fees will provide more resources for the District’s nuisance abatement program, such as site visits for enforcement purposes.

The new registration fees would replace the prior vacant property tax, which the D.C. Council abandoned after it had doubled the tax from $5 to $10 of every $100 of assessed value.  The quick and substantial increase in the tax, elimination of frequently abused exemptions, and more consistent enforcement by the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs led to an outcry that led to its repeal.  The $10 tax now applies only to "blighted" properties, and very few properties meet the criteria.

“It’s really just to spur people to put their properties back into productive use,” said City Administrator Neil Albert. “It is a graduated schedule of fees that should provide the incentive not to have their properties sitting around gathering dust.”

It's not just dust.  Vacant properties are also a significant public safety issue, and particularly so when vacant they become concentrated in an area.  Even when properly maintained, when a property is vacant it means less eyes on the streets... more muggings, more shattered car windows, more loitering, more prostitution, and less people to call police and report when someone is in trouble.  It also tends to mean that the neighbors are left to pick up accumulating trash, deal with illegal dumping, and shovel the snow.

At this point, the proposed registration fees are not law -- rather, revenue estimates from the fees are included in Mayor Fenty's 2011 budget.  I testified in late January at a hearing on the legislation proposed by Councilmember Bowser that adopts this approach.
 
The old system was working -- and by that I mean the $5 tax with consistent DCRA enforcement. There was a need to eliminate frequently abused exceptions -- the ability to put up a "for sale" sign or take out a work permit to avoid the tax entirely.  The sudden doubling of the tax, and rare situations where it was mistakenly put on an occupied properly and the error not quickly and fairly addressed, led to its demise.
 
Whether the new approach will work will depend on DCRA's ability to enforce the registration requirement as well as any loopholes in the law.  For instance, if an owner can reset the graduated fees simply by showing a water or utility bill for a month or two on the property, the fee will not provide much of an incentive.  DCRA will need to be able to impose the fee if an owner does not voluntarily register the property.  Would there be a penalty for failure to register? 

It is also important to note that the current proposal does not include vacant lots -- only vacant "improved" properties, such as houses or commercial buildings. 

The law will need to recognize some legitimate situations in which it would be unfair to impose a registration fee, such as deployment in the military or long-term medical/nursing care.

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.

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.

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.

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.