Will Gray Administration Address City Nuisance Properties?

There’s the crumbling façade of a historic house on N Street that, aside from a chain link fence securing it, has remained frozen in time while all of the adjacent properties were renovated, rented, or sold. A rowhouse on Ridge Street collapsed in the middle of the night in 2007, leaving an empty lot. Two blocks away, the 1970s-era “porto-library,” resembling a highway rest stop, stands boarded up on New York Avenue since it closed 2 years ago.

In each case, the landlord is the same – the DC government.

These 3 properties are in my neighborhood, but there are well over 100 city-owned vacant houses and lots across the city. Many remain in the same condition, and under city control, for a decade or more.

That does not count the larger properties, such as closed schools. Some have promises of future renovation. Others are slated for uses that are not in tune with the District’s comprehensive plan or surrounding community’s wishes. Downtown, the shuttered Franklin School, a historic gem built to teach 400 children as a model educational institution, is slated to become a 30-room boutique hotel.

Meanwhile, the District’s fledgling community college opened its downtown campus in a nondescript office building for which taxpayers pay the rent -- starting at $1.8 million and rising to $3.8 million each year (and an additional $264,000 to $391,909 annually for its parking lot).  The city’s public law school, charter schools, and nonprofits search for space.

The Gray Administration must develop a comprehensive inventory of its property, carefully evaluate the city’s needs, and thoughtfully consider the ideas and preferences of those who live around the sites.  He should quickly move vacant houses into affordable and market-rate housing, preserve our public treasures, and return the larger buildings to productive use.

Evans on Shiloh Tax Abatement; Explanation Doesn't Alter Neighborhood Opposition

UPDATE: At 4:30PM today, Councilmember Jack Evans sent the following message to the community: "In light of the community opposition to the legislation regarding the Shiloh Baptist Church’s properties, I have withdrawn the legislation and contacted Rev. Wallace Smith, Pastor of Shiloh, of such."  Our thanks to Councilmember Evans for listening and taking appropriate action. 

* * *

Yesterday, Ward 2 Councilmember Jack Evans explained his proposal, discussed on this blog, to provide a substantial tax abatement to Shiloh Baptist Church, which owns many blighted properties in the Shaw neighborhood that have been a source of frustration to residents for decades.  Evans explained:

Brian - thank you for writing about Bill 18-1045, the “Shiloh Baptist Church Property Redevelopment Act of 2010.” Shiloh Baptist Church, (Shiloh), owns Lots 820, 821, 822, 824, and 825 in Squares 365, Lot 20 in Square 396; Lot 31 in Square 397 and Lot 46 in Square 421 in Shaw. These properties have been classified at Class 3, Vacant Properties. Currently, Shiloh owes $57,222 (Lot 820); $55,963 (Lot 821); $66,372 (Lot 822); $43,302 (Lot 824); and $58,306 (Lot 825), a total of $281,165 in property taxes on these properties.

The purpose of the legislation is to explore the idea of having monies owed by Shiloh put into escrow and used to renovate the properties rather than paying the money to the District Government. If Shiloh does not renovate the properties in a time period to be determined, the monies would go to the District.

I was approached by the leadership of Shiloh about this issue last year. I asked Commissioner Alex Padro to convene some neighbors for discussions with representatives of Shiloh. I want to thank them for the many hours they gave to these discussions. Several good ideas came out of these meetings. The legislation has been assigned to my Committee and I intend to hold hearings to solicit further neighborhood input. At that point, I will decide which direction to take. 

Jack

Evans' e-mail did little to ease opposition from Shaw residents.

Brian Smith, to whose email Evans responded, had tried to keep an open mind, but "drastically changed [his] feelings on this scheme," stating that he "100 percent oppose[s] any legislation or proposal that would give Shiloh any escrow agreement, break or "deal" on taxes that they owe and have owed for years."  "Currently the District government is roughly 180 million in the hole...correct?" Smith wrote.  "DCRA has been "unable" to collect over $180 million in delinquent property taxes . . . . How would some sort of "escrow" be administered?  Considering the track record of DCRA and the Government as a whole I just do not see that this could be done in any way, shape or form giving Shiloh yet again another gift on a property that the District has ALREADY GIVEN THEM MONEY TO DEVELOP!!!"

"Let me see if I got this right," said David Smith, who serves as an officer of the Convention Center Community Association.  "I own multiple properties--mostly adjacent to each other--which for decades I have kept vacant and allowed to deteriorate into derelict magnets for vagrants and vermin," said Smith in an e-mail to Evans.  Smith continued, "Over the years I make various promises to renovate the buildings, but never deliver on any of them. I accumulate a very large property tax bill because the District government finally applies the appropriate classification to these blighted properties.  But instead of making me pay the taxes, the District Government then offers to reward my bad stewardship by letting me keep the tax money I owe them if I promise to do some renovations on the properties which will remain in my hands. And then, since I'm a church--assuming I actually do the renovations--I can claim that the properties are being used for religious purposes, which means I may never have to pay property taxes on them again.  Wow--I'd say that's a pretty good gift to the worst slumlord in Shaw."

"Jack, This seems like another plan to keep running out the clock on Shiloh's part.. .your email says they approached you last year so that's at least ten months and now you're going to explore this proposal with the community?" questioned Bob Carroll.  "I can save you some time....enforce the laws we all allegedly live under and tell Silo to pay their tax bills.  From what I understand DC could use the cash."

"This is ridiculous!" exclaimed Carmen Gilotte in an e-mail to Evans.  "Good ideas?  Reward Shiloh's irresponsible behavior YET AGAIN?  Why should this church get any more tax breaks?  Why? They are slumlords, they have held the community hostage, and they keep getting help from our leaders to thwart their responsibilities to the law, the community and the city.  Stop the insanity!  Make them pay what they owe!"

CCCA President Martin Moulton has also chimed in, noting other Shaw churches, such as First Rising Mount Zion Baptist Church and Asbury United Methodist Church, have substantial property holdings and have completed major projects without imposing a burden on the community or seeking special tax abatements.  "These churches -- unlike Shiloh -- have creatively made dreams a reality and with hard work and commitment shrewdly found ways to make the impossible possible," said Moulton.  "Once Shiloh pays its appropriate taxes, I believe the District government should do everything reasonable to to assist Shiloh in making the 1500 b/o 9th Street a dynamic part of a critical area in the heart of the nation's capital."

Evans Promises Slumlord $100,000 Tax Break

According to an article in the Washington Business Journal, Councilmember Jack Evans (Ward 2) has proposed that the city tax a strip of vacant properties owned by Shiloh Baptist Church along the long-neglected Ninth Street corridor in Shaw as if they were occupied, a move that would save the church about $100,000 each year.

The brief history is that Shiloh has left these properties vacant for decades, severely damaging the recovery of the area just west of the Convention Center.  Numerous promises were made of grand plans for senior centers and housing.  For years, the church evaded the city's vacant property tax, which attempts to shift the cost of such nuisances from the community that deals with the increased vagrancy, drugs, public urination and defecation, public drinking, trash, rats, and dumping that results (and to which the Shiloh properties are prime examples) to the owner.

In the face of complaints from residents who felt the impact of the derelict properties on their safety and quality of life, the city finally imposed the higher tax rate.  In addition, in 2007, the Fenty Administration stepped up and condemned several of the properties.

In the ultimate snub, however, Shiloh then obtained from the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) an exemption from the higher tax on the basis of work permits obtained to make the minor repairs necessary to abate the condemnation order (even though the law clearly says that the permits must be for work to make the property fit for occupancy).  Residents went ballistic and Shiloh's properties were reclassified as vacant, subject to the higher tax.  The city, however, let the church off the hook for the approximately $100,000 in additional taxes the church would have paid that year at the higher rate.

Good fortune again intervened for Shiloh in 2009.  Before the church got hit with the higher rate, the D.C. Council repealed the vacant property tax.  Shiloh still risked paying the new "blighted" property tax.

On October 1, thanks to Councilwoman Muriel Bowser, a revived higher tax rate for vacant property went into effect, leaving Shiloh subject to five times the residential tax rate.

The higher property tax appears to have finally provided the long-needed incentive for Shiloh to sell off two of its vacant houses and develop several others into office space for nonprofits and senior housing.  Evans' proposal to reward the church with hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax breaks, at a time in which the city is cash-starved, is fiscally irresponsible and sends precisely the wrong message to slum property owners.

Resident reaction to the proposed tax abatement was angry and swift:

"An owner is supposed to get a pass if they have a valid permit or pending zoning application. This owner should not get any special treatment especially given their 30 year slumbanking history."

"I would be supportive of this IF it was done in a manner that it was a carrot for taking action NOT done before the project began."

"The neighborhood conceded angle parking on Sunday with promises of fixing up their properties -- and that was when people were living in some of them. You have to be kidding yourself that a hefty tax abatement will make them move any faster or in any way whatsoever toward ameliorating their decayed properties."

"Shiloh has no intention of ever rebuilding. They game the city and the pols and get whatever they want while everyone else gets screwed over."

Exempt Shiloh's properties from the vacant property tax when they are no longer vacant.  That's an exemption the community can fully support.

City Workers Used On Campaigns

Below is an e-mail disseminated to neighborhood e-mail distribution lists by Joe Martin, a former Ward Service Coordinator for Mayor Adrian Fenty (and an excellent one, I might add).  Until recently, Joe continued to work in the Fenty Administration.  He serves as Chairman of Advisory Neighborhood Commission 4C in Petworth and is currently running for reelection.  Joe alleges widespread violations of the Hatch Act, which significantly restricts involvement of federal (and city) civil servants in political campaigns.

How large of a problem is this -- are these types of violations just a fact or life in the political world?  Federal workers -- would this happen in your agencies?


From: Joseph Martin
Subject: City Workers Being Used On Campaigns
Date: Thursday, October 14, 2010, 10:42 AM

I hope after the election the Hatch Act can be thoroughly revisited, vetted by the public and that we can find a better way to do things here in the District of Columbia.

The Federal Hatch Act covers DC government workers (in addition to federal workers).

While employees of the Executive Office of the Mayor were instructed by the Mayor's Ethics Attorney on how to follow the letter of the law, my interpretation of those sessions was that there was somewhat of a wink-wink, nod-nod element that I did not like at all. A variation of...

Never write when you can speak, never speak when you can nod, never nod when you can wink.

I know for fact that there were cases where staffers were called at 1:00 pm while sitting at their city-government desks and told that they needed to put in for leave immediately "do visibility" for "Emerald City" -- code for the Fenty Re-Election Campaign.

Tracy Sandler, executive director of Serve DC, said at one weekly staff meeting early in the summer, "I am waiting for everyone's leave slips." My interpretation of that might be different from others. This request was repeated in other weekly meetings.

Fun Fact: By her own admission at a staff meeting in early July, she acknowledged to me after I asked that she still is in places the voice of Barbie. Some of my coworkers referred to Tracy as "Barbie." I asked why.

"Do you want to hear my favorite line!" She exclaimed in front of all of us at that early, July staff meeting:

"Sometimes a girl's just got to wear a tiara!" 

Calls came in to Serve DC staffers, registered Republicans in three cases, at their desks during the work day asking them to work on the campaign. "We are not even Democrats and they want us to work on the Democratic primary."

Days before the Ward 4 straw poll, Sarah Latterner of EOM calling from her office in the Wilson Building and emailed me via government email demanding that I come up with a list of what the Mayor accomplished in Ward 4.

"You know what it's for," don't you?," she asked on the phone that morning.

"Your diary?," I replied.

"How soon can you get it to me? We need it now. We don't have any institutional knowledge left downtown. We're relying on you to help."

Weeks before that, Sinclair Skinner passed word through someone to me, "We need Joe's help in Ward 2."

I heard via private text messages that questions lingered about whether or not I was a "team player" (Team Fenty). I posted about this item weeks ago when I got a text message from ANC 4D Commissioner Bill Quirk asking me if it was true that I had been seen talking to Vincent Gray at a block party two blocks from my house. I know an Office of Aging employee who told me that she, too, received a text asserting that she was seen talking to Vincent Gray on Connecticut Avenue.

Before the Ward 4 straw poll the calls to me were intense, Terry Lynch of the Downtown Cluster of Congregations called me on my personal cell while I am sitting at my desk: "Are you forgetting what Mayor Fenty has done for this city!! You need to call me, Joe."

There were a few days where I put my two-year-old iPhone on "airplane mode" at my desk to block all calls so that I could attempt to focus on work at Serve DC in the Reeves Center.

As things looked grim heading towards the primary, I asked one Serve DC coworker how her weekend went.

"I didn't have a weekend. I volunteered for Emerald City, knocking on doors of registered Republicans in the Palisades asking them to switch their party affiliation so that they could vote for the Mayor in the primary."

Around the same time when I took a quick, weekday lunch at Busboys and Poets, Councilmember Jim Graham asked me as I was leaving, "Why aren't you out on the streets helping your boss?" I was with a city agency worker, a close friend, and his son. My reply to Mr. Graham, "You do know that I have work to do for my day job across the street in the Reeves Center, don't you?," as I nodded across the street towards the Reeves Center.

I told my city-agency friend who also disappeared from his job to work for Emerald City that I was more forgiving of people like him working on the campaign, taking last minute leave. "You have small children to feed. I know that. So does Team Fenty."

A friend who used to work in the Wilson Building for another City Councilmember remarked at lunch the day after I received Bill Quirk's text message, "The whole Wilson Building is a Hatch Act violation."

This needs to stop.

It seems incredibly disingenuous for those who effectively are signing your paychecks to ask you to "volunteer" on their campaigns.

According to one friend who had business friends who received the emails, Sarah Lasner, former deputy chief of staff who served as a key figure on Team Fenty, sent an email to business people telling them to take the week off before the September primary to "volunteer" on the campaign. She added something to the effect of redefining the word "volunteer" for them.

I often wondered what the result would be if there was some secret way of asking all incumbents' staffs whether or not they would be working or "volunteering" on a given campaign if they did not feel as if their jobs depended on it.

If your boss who signs your paycheck asks you to "volunteer" on her/his campaign, how does that make you feel? Where are the ethics in that?

If I seemed very stressed out this summer to a lot of my friends and neighbors, this is a hint of why.

I would like to see this system stopped. Am I a fool to think it's possible?

My oldest brother in Rhode Island snorts when I talk about this. "What were you expecting? This is city government.

It happens everywhere." I would joke back, "I still don't think it's asking too much to expect someday that the DC government will work with the efficiency and professionalism of FedEx or UPS, the entire government." If my brother had been texting instead of talking to me on the phone, I probably would have looked at my screen to read: LOL!!! LMAO!

My brother refuses to text.

"If I need to communicate with someone, I pick up the phone and call them."

Attend Summer School, Get Paid?

Some District taxpayers are asking whether the District's controversial Summer Youth Employment Program (SYEP) is giving cash to underachieving students to go to summer school rather than paying them to work?  It appears that the answer is yes, and the message it seems to send is that if you don't do well in school, no worries, you'll still get a D.C. government job.  Just like the real world?  I hope not.

Last summer, 3,370 of 22,076 youth enrolled in SYEP (15% of the total enrollment) were assigned to the D.C. Public Schools, according to the Mayor's press release.   The 2010 press release lacks such detail.  But in testimony to the D.C. Council on June 16, 2010, Department of Employment Services (DOES) Director Joseph P. Walsh reported that 8,360 youths were assigned among DCPS, the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR), and the Department of Energy (DOE) of this summer's 21,000 total enrollment. 

An additional 1,316 and 641 youth were assigned to charter schools in 2009 and 2010, respectively.  No information appears to be available as to the nature of these "employment" assignments.  Predictably, statements by the Mayor and other DC government officials tout the number of placements with private employers and at actual worksites.

Summer school is open to high school students who need three or fewer credits to graduate or to move to the next grade level.

Those whose summer work assignment is the DC Public Schools participate in the "Career Pathways" program. 

According to the DC Summer Fun website, "DCPS understands that students might need both to attend summer school and to work. Therefore the “Career Pathways” program was created to allow students to remain on track for promotion and graduation while they grow professionally during the summer by participating in SYEP."  Students can enroll both in summer school and SYEP, their attendance in regular and Career Pathways classes is separately recorded, and the students are paid for their attendance in the later.

In a letter to parents of high school students, Chancellor Michelle Rhee explained the program as the summer approached.  Rhee notes that Career Pathways is cosponsored by DOES and is part of the Mayor’s Summer Youth Employment Program.  It allows students to take up to two courses to earn academic credit, without pay, while also taking at least one paid Career Pathways course for which they do not receive academic credit.  Career Pathways is career services guidance.  "We hope that this program will prevent students from having to make the difficult choice between attending summer school or taking a summer job," says Rhee.

Perhaps that's just the type of difficult choice DC's youth should have to make.  It might teach them that if one does not focus in school, he or she will have difficulty getting a job or may have to work extra hard (nights and/or weekends) to make a living.

Gray Announces 3 Agencies to Fix, No More Earmarks

Tonight, DC mayoral candidate Vince Gray announced three top priorities for fixing the District's government agencies.  The first target -- the Department of Employment Services -- "he's not sure what they do" beyond the summer jobs program.  Next up, the position of the Deputy Mayor for Education.  Gray says its time for a "more aggressive, more assertive" person in that role, one that coordinates policy between UDC, DCPS, charter schools, and other programs.  Last, but not least, Gray stated that he would develop a cohesive economic development strategy that would focus on growth areas such as healthcare, educational services, and green jobs, and make the District a national leader for financial services companies.

Gray avoided providing any hint on who in the current Administration he might keep on if elected mayor.  Given his current position as Chairman include oversight over DC government agencies, I asked Gray to name two agency directors or other appointees that he thought were doing a great job and two others that he thought were not quite up to par.  Good try, but he's not answering, Gray responded.

Here are additional highlights of the joint forum sponsored by the Convention Center Community Association and Mount Vernon Square Neighborhood Association.

Gray on Earmarks

• Gray's elimination of earmarks was not solely due to budgetary necessity, but also a matter of policy.
• The DC Council has not followed its own earmark policy, which is supposed to limit them to $250,000 in operating funds per organization per year, up to $1 million for capital projects, and not permit repeat earmarks to an organization.
• He would have competitive grant programs available in several categories, rather than earmarks.  Grants could be available for multi-year programs because some issues cannot be addressed in a single year.  There would be oversight and accountability.
• Any organization that gets money from the city should have its performance evaluated by a city agency and, if it is not meeting established goals, have a remediation plan.
• Note: Ron Moten of Peacoholics, who participated, expressed frustration that Ward 5 groups friendly with Councilmember Harry Thomas have received DC funds despite elimination of earmarks, declared that he is against earmarks and for competitive grants.  More on that in a follow up post.
• My view:  Good plan, if it is implemented.

Gray on Education

• In his opening remarks, Gray emphasized the need for parity between public schools and charter schools.  As mayor, he would make unused or underused public facilities available for charter school and nonprofit use.
• He emphasized his support for universal pre-school.  DC will be the first city in the country to guarantee seats for all 3 and 4 year olds in September 2012.
• Gray also pushed his role in creating UDC's community college, which has acquired 3 campuses.
• He will advance a holistic approach -- 0 through 24 education.
• DC has the worst special ed system in the nation.  DC spent $166 million last year on special education, including $90 million to transport students to facilities outside of DC.
• My view: I appreciate Gray's focus on the entire system.  I'd like the Mayor to respond to why it appears he has a poor relationship with UDC which seems to be moving forward despite him.

Gray on Vacant Properties

• As Mayor, Gray pledged to increase enforcement of the city's higher tax on vacant property by hiring more DCRA staff.  These jobs pay for themselves, he said.  He did not get into details about the vacant property law, but noted that the Council had finally defined "vacant" v. "blighted."
• My view: Great, but is this an empty campaign promise targeted to address an area of concern for Shaw residents?  What was Gray's position on taking away and re-instituting the vacant property tax, and on what it should cover or not cover?

Gray on Juvenile Justice and Crime

 "We have bikes.  We have segways.  We have walking.... that's been around for decades."

• The purpose of juvenile justice is rehabilitation.
• New Beginnings, the JV detention center, is overcrowded and needs additional beds.
• Did not respond to the concern expressed by judges that they lack authority to sentence juveniles, which the city can let out at will.
• Acknowledged that some violent offenders are let out too soon.
• The city needs to invest more in the community placement system if this is to be an alternative to incarceration.
• Does not support the proposed "civil injunctions" as a means to curb gang violence because they will result in racial profiling and pull in people who are not criminals.
• Would push for more community policing. According to Gray (citing an MPD report), only 300 of 4,000 officers are involved in community policing.
• My view: I heard him provide a stronger view on JV justice's failure at the Ward 3 Democrats forum.  It's broken.  Community policing is a nice buzz word, but it's not quite tangible.

Gray on Lack of Growth on 9th St. and Unwanted Development

• Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner Mike Bernardo (ANC 2F) expressed the communities frustration with the slow pace of economic development on Ninth Street NW.  A Shaw resident noted her concern that the owner of a property in Shaw had opted to develop a group house rather than the initially planned condominium due to zoning restrictions.  
• Gray proposed more "small area neighborhood plans," such as that developed for Chinatown, as the answer.  Since the summer of 2008, Gray noted that the Office of Planning, which falls under his oversight, had developed 15 small area plans that reflect what the community would like to see in their neighborhood.
• My view: I'm not sure how realistic developing such plans would be and, as I expressed in a later question on the Bundy School, plans aren't worth a dime if they are not followed or ignored.

Gray on Bike Lanes and Smart Growth

"I thought they were high when they did [the Pennsylvania Avenue bike lanes].  They are really ludicrous."

• Gray doesn't bike, but he supports bike riding and encourages it as energy efficient.
• Reserved bike lanes in some areas of the city (i.e. 9th Street NW) back of traffic.  In other areas, the lack of bike lanes have the same result.  The lanes do not seem well planned.  "I'm not sure we have figured out how to do it yet," said Gray. 
• Pennsylvania Avenue lanes are particularly dangerous.
• Supports transit-oriented development around metro stations.
• My view: I didn't get the impression that installing more bike lanes would be high on Gray's priority list.

Gray on Church Parking

"I'm not suggesting blame on either side."

• Gray acknowledged that the city should enforce the law when drivers block crosswalks, hydrants, or other cars on Sundays.
• He'll work with the community and churches to solve the problem.
• My view: Ironic that Gray makes a stink about how Maryland and Virginia residents don't have to pay DC taxes, but then suggests out-of-state residents who ignore DC law have equally valid concerns with DC residents who have legitimate safety and quality-of-life issues.

Gray on the Bag Tax

• Took issue with the Mayor's reallocating the money from cleaning up the Anacostia, as designated, to regular street cleaning purposes on the purported rationale that refuse blows into the river.
• The Council has redirected the money collected from the tax back to river cleanup.
• My view: Good.

Gray on the Bundy School

"Get a new Mayor, one that is more collaborative."

• Given his support for community planning as well as his support for offering vacant DC properties to nonprofits, I asked Gray how he would have addressed the Bundy School as Mayor. (The Bundy School, located on the 400 Block of O Street NW) is slated for residential and recreational use in the District's Comprehensive Plan, but was given to Safe Shores, a child welfare agency/nonprofit partnership).
• Gray responded that the city should stick with the plan and there should be no surprises.
• My view: Gray wasn't aware of the situation. I agree that the city should have stuck to the Comprehensive Plan, and engaged the community at an early stage if it was going to go in another direction.

A World Class Riot

At the Mayoral Forum in Ward 3 on June 11, Mayor Adrian Fenty called New Beginnings, the city's youth detention center a "world class facility."  Last night, WUSA-9 reported a "riot situation" in which the juveniles refused to enter their bedrooms and fought with staff.  A shift supervisor who responded had his nose broken.  MPD arrived to find the youths wandering through the facility at will while others were on the roof.  The good news.... apparently no one escaped this time.  According to the report:

Union officials say the facility meant to house 60 youngsters between the ages of 15-20 currently holds 70 and staffers are unable to safely supervise their charges, especially because of the more open nature of the structure's design. "It's been open season on staffers, they are being continually assaulted by the and this needs to come to a stop" concluded williams. "The juveniles need to be taught a lesson, they continually assault our officers , that's been the status quo"

In somewhat related news, the Washington Post includes a report today on the Peacoholics and the millions of dollars it has received during the Fenty Administration.  There's not much new in this article, but it does document that the group received at least $1.5 million in noncompetitively bid city contracts in 2008 and $5.1 million in taxpayer funds from a variety of sources in 2009 (including $4.4 million to build a group home in Congress Heights).  Those figures apparently do not include $3.6 million ($1.5 in 2009) in contracts from the Youth Investment Trust Corp., which is largely funded with city money distributed by a board appointed by the mayor, or $500,000 from the Justice Grants Administration, another quasi-city agency, awarded in October 2009 for the organization to help run prisoner reentry programs.  The article questions whether by taking a very active role in supporting Fenty and opposing Gray, Peacoholics may jeopardize its 501(c)(3) status.  I've discussed my concerns with Peacoholics before and had a chance to discuss them in person with co-founder Ron Moten one month ago.  Both Peacoholics and Chairman Gray are scheduled to appear at the next Convention Center Community Association meeting on June 29.  If past meetings with Peacoholics are prologue, expect fireworks.

Latest Peacoholics Drama

Housing Complex has an interesting piece today about the latest in what seems to be a neverending drama about the Peacoholics.  It involves their building a 13-unit transitional living facility for at-risk youth, apparently with funds stemming from the D.C. Department of Housing and Community Development in Ward 8's Congress Heights. 

The story is the same we've heard again and again about Peacoholics.  It's not that people object to their mission - in fact, they'd find a lot of support from just about everyone.  It's not even NIMBYism.  Rather, the issues with Peacoholics come down to this every single time:

Confrontational approach.  Peacoholics and its leaders seem to take an adversarial, confrontational, and defensive approach to addresssing the community.  Although any other group involved in a development project would come before the Advisory Neighborhood Commission and explain the project to residents, and seek their support at the get-go (the project across the street from theirs indeed did so), Peacoholics addressed the community only after controversy erupted and was summoned by the ANC.  As described in the article, they sat in the back of the ANC meeting, didn't introduce themselves, then lashed out when questioned about their finances.  Ultimately, they accused an ANC Commissioner of seeking bribes from them and sued her for defamation.  I've witnessed a similar meeting in Shaw.

Lack of transparency and accountability.  Peacoholics seem to receive a lot of government funds (fire engine transfer to the DR aside) [UPDATE: Wow, Congress Heights on the Rise has posted documents residents received in response to a FOIA request.  They show that Peacoholics received $1.3 million from the Department of Youth Rehabilitative Services in FY 2008-2009, $4.5 million from the Housing Production Trust Fund in FY 2007-2009, $300k from the Public Safety and Justice budget in FY 2007-2008, and $50k from the Department of Human Services in FY 2008.]  Even after the Council cut off millions in earmarks, here it is again receiving public money.  But even that is not a problem in itself.  While the group declares matter of factly that they have stopped killings in [insert your neighborhood], it will not produce any reports, statistics, etc. that provide a description of precisely what it does, how many youth it serves and in what capacity, a budget/financial statement showing how it spends its money, its accomplishments... results.  The lack of accountability, particularly when public money is at issue, raises concern.

It's really a shame.  Providing support in the form of mentoring and job placement is important for at-risk youths, as is showing them there are alternatives to the cycle of gang violence and retaliation.  Nonprofit groups such as Peacoholics have a role to play that may not be adequately filled by MPD in enforcing the law and government agencies in providing social services.  But the approach, the management, the seeming contempt for anyone who asks questions undermines this organization's effectiveness.

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.

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.

District Could Lose Millions in Tax Revenues

The District's consumer affairs agency has fewer than 60 days to compile a list of every "blighted" building in D.C. so those properties can be taxed at a significantly higher rate -- a challenge that could deny city coffers millions of dollars if it is not met. . . .

Projected revenue gains, losses » Revenue gained from blight tax: $800,000 through 2013.
» Revenue lost by eliminating vacant tax: $48.9 million through 2013.

But a limited timeline and confusion over what constitutes "blight" could mean few properties are captured by the highest tax. The Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs must submit a list of all properties that meet the conditions to the Office of Tax and Revenue by mid-January, so that tax bills can go out on time.

"There's just no way they can have this ready for this tax season," said Cary Silverman, president of the Mount Vernon Square Neighborhood Association. "The whole thing will have to be on hold." 

In case you missed the article in by Michael Neibauer in Sunday's The Examiner, you can read it here.

Bobbleheads With Campaign Funds?

D.C. Councilmember Jack Evans had 100 of the 7-inch tall statues made. (Mark Segraves/WTOP Photo)

In case you missed it, last week, WTOP's Mark Segraves reported that DC Councilmember Jack Evans now has his own bobblehead, funded by campaign donations.

"I'm giving them out to select people." Evans tells WTOP. Evans' bobblehead has him sporting a black suit and a black and white striped tie. The likeness is pretty good, although the bobblehead has more hair and fewer wrinkles than the real Evans.

I'm confused. According to DC law, surplus campaign funds must, within 6 months of an election, be: (1) donated to a political party; (2) used to retire campaign debts; (3) returned to donors; or (4) transferred to an authorized constituent services fund. I missed (5) used to purchase bobbleheads with the Councilmember's likeness.

Off the Deep End?

I voted for Fenty. I donated to Fenty. I've supported Fenty. But lately, I find my self asking, has Fenty gone off the deep end?

First, there were the repeated situations when the Mayor refused to make agency officials available for oversight and legislative hearings. Ok, they're busy doing the people's work. Maybe the Council was being too demanding with their pesky questions.

But then there was the continued silence, stonewalling, and misinformation on the fire truck sent to the Dominican Republic through the DC-funded millionaire Peaceaholics, which has brought no peace to the "feuds" that continue at 5th and N, 7th and N, Lincoln Westmoreland, etc.

Next, there was the firing of Clark Ray for no apparent reason and his replacement with Ximena Hartsock. She went from school principal to running after school programs to leading DPR within a very short time. I was skeptical, but, from what I saw, she was stepping up into the new position. Given that prior to Clark Ray DPR went through about 6 heads in less than 5 years, and most of them incompetent, she was doing comparatively well. But understandably the Council had their doubts and ultimately decided she was not the best person for the job (though comments at the hearing by a certain infamous councilmember with respect to her race/gender tarnished our city). It was their prerogative not to approve her nomination. But, this week, Fenty thumbed his nose at the Council, changed her title from "acting" to "interim," and kept her in the job.

That's, as some in the Jewish faith might say, some real chutzpah. And our Attorney General actually defends the move as legal with some tortured legalese. Try Civics 101 -- the executive appoints with the advice and consent of the legislature. If the legislature says no, the end, try again. The only way for Fenty and Nickles to redeem themselves in this instance is to truly view this as an "interim" appointment and nominate someone else who is qualified for the position within the next two weeks.

Next, there's the contracts for building a dozen parks, at a cost ranging from $800,000 to $12 million, without council approval. What? That $800,000 park -- it's the slum park down the block from my house in Shaw. When the design was announced after years of hoping, waiting, fighting, hearing "there's no consensus," "it's not in this year's budget," I was elated when the design popped up - finally, a Mayor and DPR that gets stuff done! More surprising -- the groundbreaking would be held within a month of the announcement. But an unanswered question lingered - where was the money coming from? Did the Council approve the allocation? Was it already in the DPR budget? Apparently not. It was coming out of the DC Housing Authority budget to avoid procurement rules.

Attorney General Nickles, to his credit, found the contracts illegal -- as any contact over $1 million requires Council approval. Then, to his discredit, he warned the Council that they'd pay if they stopped the illegal contracts, awarded to acquaintances of the Mayor, from moving forward. (Actually, the Shaw park budget was low enough to not require Council approval, aside from the stalled hotel -- why are Shaw projects always cheap?) Oh, and now Nickles says the contracts already entered are fine after all ("retroactivity is not favored in the law" (article in today's Post)-- huh, I thought his original opinion was based on a 1996 corporate counsel opinion that addresses the same question?).

Then there is the ongoing battle of the nickels -- AG Nickels v. Auditor Nichols -- over her access to records of real estate deals related to the National Capital Revitalization Corp. and Anacostia Waterfront Corp. Nichols, the auditor, won her right to the docs, and the AG is taking it up on appeal.

Oh, and how can I leave out the hiring of 934 teachers earlier this year only to use a RIF to fire 200+ of them a month into the school year? A month into the school year? And then claim that the layoff was timed to minimize the disruption to students. Chancellor Rhee claims budget cuts necessitated the RIF. Either that's untrue or there's astoundingly poor management at DCPS.

Meanwhile, the city just finished building a new Walker Jones elementary school campus, which has less than 200 students for its 800 spots and plans to consolidate Montgomery Elementary School's 200 students into Walker Jones -- after just spending millions on a new wing, playground, parking lot, and other improvements, and as student testing scores go up. Good luck to the six-year-olds crossing New York and New Jersey Avenues, among the most dangerous intersections in the city.

Linking the schools and the parks, the Mayor, lest anyone forget his beneficent rule, etched his name across an elementary school soccer field in Columbia Heights.

DC residents are excited and optimistic to see dramatic change in the way our schools operate. We are all pleased that parks are finally getting needed renovations. I cannot wait for the new park to replace the broken concrete shooting gallery and graveyard on the 600 Block of N Street NW. I hope residents regain the confidence to trust their children to DC public schools.

But the Mayor needs to step back and recognize that his Administration must operate within the law. He must begin working with the Council, the legislative body of government which allocates funds and is responsible for oversight, and put out the fires that are engulfing the bridges. Attorney General Nickles should begin acting like the chief legal officer of the District of Columbia -- and not as the Mayor's name-calling bully who pretends any action by the Fenty Administration is above board and anyone who raises legitimate questions is a "stupid, angry woman."

It's past time that the DC Council step up and play hardball. Councilmembers know what is going on. You can bet Ward councilmembers attended the ground breaking ceremonies for each of those illegally funded parks and didn't ask questions. Chairman Gray and the Council claim that they did not reduce the school budget, but the Chancellor moved forward with layoffs. Now, with the Mayor refusing to acknowledge the Council's power to confirm nominees to lead DC agencies and the AG allowing millions in contracts that were not approved by the Council, will the Council sit idly by, hold another hearing that Administration officials can chose whether or not to attend, or do more than threaten a lawsuit?

Fixing Earmarks?

Aside from essentially placing his girlfriends on the payroll, the Mayor for Life gave thousands of dollars in earmarks to organizations connected to him in his Ward. According to a CityPaper investigation, Barry had a hand in creating and controlling the very organizations that received the money. In fact, some of the organizations were incorporated after they were slated to receive city money.

Barry made headlines because (1) he's Barry and (2) he’s brazen and blatant. Like Teflon, nothing seems to stick to the man. The fact is that many Councilmember use earmarks. Each year, millions of taxpayer dollars are given to politically-connected organizations. “Designated appropriations” are tucked away in budget legislation that the average citizen won’t be able to find. Usually, it is the Ward councilmember that inserts earmarks for organizations centered in his or her own ward.

There are legitimate questions as to what benefits some of these supposed one-time, no-bid grants produce for the taxpaying residents of the District.

Rest assured, Councilmembers benefit when re-election time arrives. Organizations whose programming or salaries are dependent on the cash infusion turn around and endorse the incumbent (unofficially through their individual leadership because they would jeopardize their tax exempt status should they do so as an organization), supply volunteers, and, in some cases, even hold lucrative fundraisers in support. For example, when I ran for the Ward 2 seat on the Council last year, I was shocked to find the Greater Washington Sports Alliance openly touting that it was hosting a VIP fundraiser for Councilmember Jack Evans because he had obtained a $500,000 earmark for the organization. Maybe that's not a quid pro quo, but it comes dangerously close.

During that period, which involved a similar surge in gang violence that we are experiencing now in Shaw, Mr. Evans held one of his “crime forums” At this one, he brought out the leadership of organizations such as Peaceoholics and the Alliance of Concerned Men to discuss their programs. (Peaceoholics received a $1 million for FY 2009 for anti-gang intervention and $500,000 in FY 2008 for mentoring). When residents plagued by gunfire despite the allocation of this money asked how this money was used, they were met with defensiveness and attacks from some members of the panel, and wholly nonresponsive answers. I've listed some of the crime-fighting, gang intervention-type organizations, but there are quite a few more. Would such money be better spent on more police officers, community college and vocational training, lengthening recreation center hours, or youth sports leagues?

Aside from anti-gang organizations, "big art" stands out as the other major recipient of earmark money in DC-- whether it's $10 million for Fords Theatre or millions to organizations such as the Washington Ballet and Washington Opera. The one-sentence explanations accompanying these outlays often states a purpose related to youth education and outreach. Who's against children? Well, given the amount we've been spending, taxpayers should expect DC's youth to be among the most cultured in the nation. Are they? Do deserving local artists and smaller organizations receive similar DC government support?

DC taxpayers have a right to be skeptical. When a Councilmember earmarks money for a nonprofit organization, he or she is essentially making a charitable contribution with your money. Only, you don't get a tax deduction and you don't have a choice in the matter.

I’m not ready to say we should eliminate all earmarks. There are truly worthy services provided by many of these organizations, who do their jobs well and better than the DC government could accomplish directly. Here are a few principles DC ought to consider:

1. Move toward more competitive grants. Earmarks, by their very nature, allocate money to politically connected organizations. Other groups, who may be more effective or in need of funds, may be overlooked. Give more organizations an opportunity to apply for funds for beneficial projects.

2. Transparency. Try finding the list of earmarks... I dare you. (Hint: you’ll need to go to the District’s Legislative Management Information System, find the final version of the annual Budget Support Act among other budget bills, make certain you have the approved final version of the bill, then find the 20 or so pages of earmarks tucked in the 150 or so page bill). If earmarks continue, the DC government should maintain a publicly available website listing:

• each organization that receives a DC government grant;
• the date of each allocation;
• identify which councilmember sponsored the allocation;
• explain, in detail, the purpose of the funds;
• include a detailed budget for the funds;
• provide contact information for the individual at the organization responsible for administering the funds;
• include a record of each and every expenditure from the government allocation with an explanation; and
• contain a link to a mandated report, filed by the organization at the end of the fiscal year, detailing the results achieved through the use of the earmark or grant money.

3. Accountability. The information provided on the DC website would provide citizens with the ability to better assess if their money is spent wisely. Organizations that do not show results should not be eligible for taxpayer funds in the future. Councilmembers who repeatedly give away our money to organizations based on politics instead of merit, should face consequences at the polls. The Council should also hold an annual oversight hearing related to the use of the previous year's earmarks.

I’d be interested in your perspective on this issue. How should the DC Council handle earmarks in the future?