The recent revelations that Councilmember Marion Barry (D-Ward 8 ) funneled a city contract to his on-again-off-again girlfriend (Mr. Barry canceling and renewing the contract in sync with the relationship’s woes) has brought about a need to strengthen the city’s ethics laws. Though conflict-of-interest laws prohibit giving contracts or positions to member’s of an official’s own household (the law defines this as immediate family), there is no restriction against giving contracts to girlfiends or boyfriends, who may in fact share interests and advantages akin to those of legal family.
Though using public funds to enrich one’s boyfriend or girlfriend (or mistress— Mr. Barry, “standing moral compass of God” is still married to someone else, lest we forget), may not be illegal, but it is unethical. Public faith in good government rightly erodes at the sight of people of questionable qualifications reaping public benefits simply for being in bed with the powerful (in this case literally).
Mr. Barry, when asked if he would award city money to a girlfriend, responded, “Unless the law changes, why not?”
Mr. Barry’s ethical lapses are frequent enough that such a remark should not come as a surprise. During his mayoralty, crime in the District soared, schools soured to become some of the worst in the nation, and people fled the city just so they could receive decent government services. In 1990 Mr. Barry was arrested and caught on camera smoking crack in a hotel room with a woman who was not his wife. Recently it was revealed that Mr. Barry failed to file Federal tax returns for eight of the last nine years and had also neglected to file city tax returns.
No one who so carelessly disregards the tax law should be in a position to determine how public funds are spent. Nobody is above the law and it is time the city codify this principle further. We propose the city council enact the following law to ensure that anyone running for elected office in the city has filed all tax returns as required and does not owe any outstanding debts to the city.
WHEREAS equality before the law and obedience to the law are necessary for a fair and free society, two requirements listed below will be added to D.C. Code § 1 – 1001.02 defining “qualified electors.” For the general election following the ratification of this bill, a “qualified elector” will be defined as a person who meets the existing requirements and
- Who has filed all tax returns to the District government as required; and
- Who is not delinquent in the payment of any taxes, fees, or judgments to the District government.
The District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics will certify these additional requirements.
Harry Jackson, flustered. Opposing civil rights is such hard work.
The bad part about direct democracy is that it empowers the tyranny of the majority to overrun the rights of unpopular minorities.
We have reported before that when the D.C. city council voted to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, the lone dissenting vote was cast by Marion Barry, who claimed to stand “on the moral compass of God” and opposed the legislation also out of what he claimed to be racial solidarity. Joining him in standing in the schoolhouse door was Bishop Harry Jackson, a District resident (more on that below) who is the pastor of a Maryland church.
Unhappy that the city council passed the civil rights legislation, Jackson threatened to bring the matter to a city-wide referendum, where, as we have noted before, it just might pass. Jackson hit a snag earlier this week, though, when the city’s Board of Elections invalidated the proposed ballot question since it would deny civil rights to LGBT people, whom the city’s Human Rights Act protects from discrimination. City law wisely prohibits ballot referenda that contradict the Human Rights Act; human rights are not, and should never be, up for a popular vote.
Mr. Jackson is challenging the board’s decision in court, hoping an “activist judge” will side with him and let him put the discriminatory civil rights question on the ballot. Complicating the matter is whether Mr. Jackson has standing as a District resident to propose the referendum. As the Washington Blade has reported, Jackson and his wife own two houses (blessed are the poor?) in Montgomery County, Maryland, and neighbors claim they reside in one of those houses, a $1.1-million mansion. The Jacksons, however, claim neither home as their principal residence according to tax records. For the purpose of voting, Mr. Jackson claims residence in unit 630 in the tony Whitman condominium building in the Mount Vernon Triangle area of DC. Tax records show that a Mr. Joseph Honaker owns this one-bedroom condo and claims it as his primary residence. If these records all hold true, it would appear that Mr. Jackson shares a one-bedroom condo with another man.
Joining Mr. Jackson in his battle against civil rights is Rev. Walter E. Fauntroy, former D.C. Delegate to the House of Representatives, former city councilman, and civil rights activist (until now); Rev. Dale E. Wafer, pastor of the Harvest Church in Northeast; Melvin Dupree; Sandra B. Harris, a real estate agent with Cosmopolitan Properties in Shaw; Dr. Patricia Johnson, dean of a local Christian liberal arts college; and Bobby Perkins, Sr., pastor of World Missions for Christ Church in Shaw. Even if Mr. Jackson is not a bona fide resident, that still doesn’t necessarily stop the ballot referendum since one of these other residents could carry the torch of discrimination.
Nobody knows how the court will rule (our guess is that they will defer to the Board of Elections, City Council and city attorney), but it is truly shocking to see such strident opposition to civil rights in a supposedly liberal city, where over 90% of the electorate cast ballots for Barack Obama. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
Bishop Harry Jackson, who, while a District resident, is the pastor of a Maryland church and is pushing to put civil rights up to a popular vote. The Post reports that he is going to try to bring to a referendum the city council’s near-unanimous vote to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. (Councilman Marion Barry, claiming to stand “on the moral compass of God”, was the lone dissenter)
Though we have worried before that such a referendum might pass, the city council could avoid a ballot measure altogether by inserting the marriage language into the city’s human rights code. According to existing statues, the District’s human rights code is not subject to voter referenda— this is wise, as civil rights should never be put to a popular vote.
However, even if Mr. Jackson fails to get the question on the ballot and even if such a question were rejected by the electorate, Congress could always intervene. In fact, Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Dan Boren (D-Oklahoma) have introduced a bill to prevent the city council from recognizing same-sex marriage.
It’s unlikely such a bill would pass. Soon the District will be added to the list of American juridictions that have ended marriage discrimination.
We lamented President Obama’s decision to swiftly end the D.C. voucher program, noting that his administration, which doles out billions of dollars for careless bankers and failed automakers, couldn’t find a trifling $15 million for poor children in the District of Columbia. The Post reports today that the president has yielded to his better judgment and is proposing a fairer method of ending a program, which ideally would not end.
The program provided school vouchers for low-income children in the District to attend private schools for two-year stints. Those in the program showed modest academic improvement and parents were much happier with their chosen schools. It’s no secret that teachers’ unions are hostile to school choice, since it risks diverting public funds from the failed schools they control to the private and parochial schools in which they have little clout. The unions pressured Congress, which is now majority Democrat, and Congress obliged by refusing to renew the voucher program.
Education Secretary Arne Duncan swiftly rescinded the vouchers for the upcoming year, pronouncing the program dead.
The president is now proposing a compromise: the children currently enrolled in the program will receive vouchers through their high school graduations, but no new students will be admitted to the program. This is an improvement over the previous plan, which would have kicked kids of modest means to the curb come September.
The president is right to strike a compromise— compromises are necessary in a democracy— but the president’s choice to compromise on this subject is worrying. On one side are children from low-income families that have few choices for quality education. On the other side are powerful, deep-pocketed teachers’ unions that oppose reform or real accountability measures that might inconvenience or shrink their membership.
Ideally, Mr. Obama would expand the program to afford more low-income District children the ability to escape the city’s schools, which are among the worst in the nation. Mr. and Mrs. Obama, upon moving to the White House, passed over the city’s public schools in favor of the private Sidwell Friends School. Why are the Obamas’ neighbors any less deserving?
Normally it is good for a president to compromise, and this compromise is likely the best he could achieve with this Congress. Nonetheless, this compromise suggests a moral equivalence between low-income children looking for a good education and powerful teachers’ unions looking to protect their privilege.
Update:
On a positive note, the president is proposing $517 million for merit-pay programs. Let us hope this is not window-dressing.
Gov. George Wallace stands in the doorway of the University of Alabama, refusing a Federal order to desegregate the school.
Civil rights advanced today in the District of Columbia in spite of Marion Barry, who cast the lone vote in opposition to the city’s recognition of same-sex marriage. The former mayor, drug convict, habitual tax-cheat, and overwhelmingly re-elected councilman from Ward 8 justified his vote with an outrageous claim of racial solidarity:
What you’ve got to understand is 98 percent of my constituents are black and we don’t have but a handful of openly gay residents. Secondly, at least 70 percent of those who express themselves to me about this are opposed to anything dealing with this issue. The ministers think it is a sin, and I have to be sensitive to that.
That’s completely irrelevant. Mr. Barry believes that civil rights should be up to the popular vote, though he, of all people, as a former civil rights activist, should know how morally problematic that is. Individual rights (especially the right to equal protection) are for individual citizens to have and not for others to take away; this is the absolutely essential foundation of a free constitutional democracy.
Furthermore, contentious civil rights never pass on popular vote— if they did, they wouldn’t be contentious. The purpose of federal civil rights laws and Constitutional rights is to prevent the tyranny of the majority from abridging the rights of unpopular minorities.
Mr. Barry, completely oblivious to the fact that his very same arguments have been used to justify racial segregation, disenfranchisement, and discrimination, predicted alarmingly that the council’s vote would provoke a “civil war.”
The language of civil war was also a favorite of Gov. George Wallace (pictured above), who infamously promised “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever,” in his inaugural speech standing at the same exact spot where Jefferson Davis was sworn in as president of the Confederacy. Whereas Mr. Wallace decades later repented for his dreadful segregationism, Mr. Barry (yet again) has no shame.
After the 2004 election, some asked what’s the matter with Kansas? After this incident and after noticing that Mr. Barry was re-elected to the council with an astonishing 91% of the vote, we wonder, what’s the matter with Ward 8?
"Marriage is not a right." Bishop Harry Jackson of Beltsville's New Hope Christian Church voice his own interpretation of civil rights.
We wrote before of the fact that an astonishing 70% of black Californians voted for Proposition 8, which prohibited same-sex marriage. We also wrote before that when we extrapolate the California results and apply them to the District, a similar city ballot question would pass if one considers income, education, or race.*
Just a few weeks ago, to our surprise, the city council unanimously passed a bill to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. That very same day, the Vermont legislature stole much of the media thunder by overriding the governor’s veto and legalizing same-sex marriage in the Green Mountain State. Nonetheless, it was a bold move for Washington, a city whose every decision can be vetoed by a Congress looking to make a statement. The issue of marriage is usually portrayed in the media as a religious-secular struggle and another side of the issue rarely discussed: race.
The relationship between race and opinion on same-sex marriage— a relationship so quietly whispered it dare not speak its name!— has come out of the closet in DC, a city that votes overwhelmingly Democrat and is also 56% black.
Several area churches (all predominantly black and some of them suburban) spent part of Tuesday protesting the city council’s recent decision and lined up outside the Wilson Building on Freedom Plaza to voice their displeasure. (See the Post’s video of the event)
Bishop Harry Jackson (pictured above) of the New Hope Christian Church— which is outside the District— recently penned his own opinion on the matter in Newsweek lamenting his own “robbery” at the city council meeting by those dastardly “equality vigilantes”!
I felt robbed and disenfranchised as I observed “equality vigilantes” setting up an unjust concept of civil rights.
Mr. Jackson seems to have his own peculiar interpretation of civil rights. In the Post video above, he states:
Marriage is not a right. Brothers and sisters can’t get married. People who are related can’t get married. You can’t marry a three-year-old. There are parameters that are for the benefit of the society about marriage.
Wrong. In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a basic civil right. To deny a civil right on account of sex (that is, to disqualify a woman from marrying another woman solely because she is a woman) requires a compelling state interest. Some states have decided there is such an interest, some have found there is not. Nonetheless, in American jurisprudence marriage is a civil right.
Mr. Jackson, who, as the Post’s Marc Fisher has noted, has strong connections to the national conservative movement, continues, “I’d rather be politically courageous than politically correct.” That’s a noble sentiment, for sure, but it is certainly possible to be selfishly courageous, too.
Lynne Breece, a District resident and a bystander at the event, offered some hope that not everyone shares Mr. Jackson’s views:
As a black woman, I know a lot about discrimination on both ends, and I know what it feels like. And for us, of all people, black ministers to use the pulpit to oppress another minority and then to cloak that bigotry using the bible! This happened to black people!
Indeed, though Dr. Martin Luther King cited scripture to demand equality, Jim Crow supporters and defenders of slavery never hesitated to quote the good book either.
Councilman Marion Barry, who didn’t show up to vote on the bill, but who previously promised to vote for same-sex marriage, managed to make it to the rally and profess his new-found opposition. Why the change of heart? Barry provided a great gem of a quotation:
I am a politician who is moral.
Even with Barry’s opposition, the rest of the council and the mayor have all voiced support for eventual same-sex marriage licensing in the city. Messrs. Barry and Jackson notwithstanding, justice and fairness shall overcome someday.
* A majority of California’s urban voters voted against Prop. 8. Since DC is technically 100% urban, a similar proposition would be defeated by this measure. Admittedly, extrapolating from the results of the California electorate is difficult since California is much more diverse than DC on several important points. California includes liberal cities, conservative cities, liberal suburbs, conservative suburbs, and plenty of rural areas. Nonetheless, there are no public opinion polls for District residents on the matter of same-sex marriage, leaving us only to offer these educated guesses.
Topics: Civil Rights & Human Rights, Demography, Identity, Prejudice, Religion, Washington
Though George W. Bush often defined terrorism incorrectly as taking up arms against the United States or its interests, a more accurate definition would be the actual or threatened destruction of people or property as a means of political intimidation. States can commit terrorism against opposition parties just as stateless Islamists can bomb hotels. Either way, the use of violence for political intimidation is terrorism.
The definition came to mind to today when reading about fifteen people who smashed and vandalized two banks in Logan Circle early Saturday morning. They weren’t there to steal money, but, as the anti-IMF and anti-World Bank graffiti they left in their wake suggests, they had a beef against the capitalist system. It’s no coincidence that these acts of violence coincided with the annual meeting of the World Bank and IMF, a perennial target of anarchist and anti-capitalist theatrics.
Since this violent destruction of property was motivated by a hatred of the relationship between capitalism and the world’s political systems, this violence, which the Post reported as mere “vandalism” qualifies as terrorism. The Post won’t classify this violence as terrorism and the city’s police aren’t likely to either. But had a similar crime been committed not by young, white Marxists, but by middle-aged Muslim extremists, the media and police would have likely classified this violence as terrorism.
This is a shameful double standard we ought to eliminate. Radical Muslims aren’t the only people who can commit terrorism.
“George Bush doesn’t care about black people.”
So said Kanye West in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina when hundreds of poor, mostly black, residents of New Orleans were stranded in the Superdome and atop flood houses in the Big Easy.
No matter, with the election of Barack Obama, surely the Federal government now attends to the best interests of disadvantaged minority populations, right? Not always.
In 2004 Congress passed the District of Columbia School Choice Incentive Act, providing vouchers of up to $7,500 for low-income children in the District to attend private schools. Since the District’s public schools are among the worst in the nation and considering that poor parents love their children, too, it’s no surprise that parents jumped on the opportunity with such enthusiasm that the program developed a waiting list. A recent U.S. Department of Education study found that children in the program scored about the same in math and slightly more in reading. Nonetheless, voucher parents were much more satisfied with their chosen schools than public school parents were with their schools.*
The voucher program operated with the strong support of the mayor, the District’s “state” superintendent, and the low-income parents of the voucher recipients (90% black, 9% Latino), who finally got the chance to give their children what their neighbors Mr. & Mrs. Obama give to their children: a quality private education. The parents were happy and the kids’ performance improved modestly. In an era when the Treasury hands out hundreds of billions of dollars to shoddy banks and failed carmakers, certainly the voucher program’s modest success was worth the paltry $15 million annual cost.
Not so fast! Enter the teachers’ unions and their partner-in-disparity, Eleanor Holmes Norton, D.C.’s non-voting Delegate to the House of Representatives. She made clear her opposition to the program, telling the Post, “…the Democratic Congress is not about to extend this program.”
With Democratic majorities in both houses and at the behest of the teachers’ unions, Congress, fresh from passing $410 billion budget bill, callously failed to renew the voucher program.
If we ran our elections the way we run many of our public schools, there would be civil rights investigations and lawsuits to match. Instead, when public-sector mediocrity denies poor children their right to a decent education, thereby reducing their future life opportunities, the Right doesn’t much bother with an issue it never noticed anyway and the Left willfully averts its eyes toward its well-heeled funders. If voting patterns still hold true, the beneficiaries of these programs would vote overwhelmingly Democrat anyway; the G.O.P. has nothing to gain, the Democrats have nothing to lose. Sadly, the children have much to lose.
In noting the disparities in the quality of public education in America, Rev. Al Sharpton, in a rare moment of clarity, stated why public education continues to fail millions of Americans:
The people standing in the schoolhouse doorway now are people we thought were our friends, liberals wearing suits not bibb overalls, principals and teachers who want to uphold the status quo — condescending bigots who perpetuate a system we know is profoundly unequal.
Conservatives typically don’t make public education their issue, except when it comes to biology (evolution), health (sex), and school prayer. Liberals typically advocate the use of government power to equalize social opportunity and even equalize social outcomes. Even though one would normally expect the Left to advocate policies that best benefit marginalized populations, the Democratic party still knows that both money and ballots talk: the nation’s two big teachers’ unions, the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, support Democratic candidates with massive investments, volunteers, and votes. When the interests of the unions conflict with the interests of disadvantaged children of color, the former constituency holds the trump card.
Tellingly, Ms. Norton also told the Post several months ago, “We have to protect the children, who are the truly innocent victims here.” Indeed they are.
* In fairness, one might attribute this to the fact that people have a tendency to view the consequences of their own choices more positively than consequences imposed on them by others. Just as people exhibit a pride of ownership in homes, people exhibit a pride of ownership in their own choices. If “choice” can apply to abortions, it should certainly apply to schooling.
Topics: Civil Rights & Human Rights, Class, Education, Identity, Politics, Prejudice, Washington
Hastily laying off workers, outsourcing work to temp firms, banning union activities, and reclassifying workers to disqualify them from organizing. Sound like Walmart? Actually, it’s what SEIU, one of the nation’s largest labor unions, is accused of doing to its staff.
Perhaps only the most dedicated of philosophers ever asks the meta question as to who will unionize the unions. In fact there is a meta-union called the Union of Union Representatives (UUR), which has filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board accusing SEIU of Walmart-esque labor practices.
SEIU claims it is laying off workers from its DC headquarters so it can reorient its DC operations to lobbying and influence-seeking, rather than such trivial activities like, you know, organizing.
The DC office will not guarantee jobs for organizing employees if they move to local chapters, but if they are hired by locals, the DC office will pay their salaries. These employees, however, will not be eligible for membership in the meta-union. The employees may keep their job (though located elsewhere) and get paid by the DC office, but they won’t be able to remain in UUR.
Employees picketed SEIU headquarters recently, thus giving the union’s chief, Andy Stern, a taste of his own medicine.
D.C. City Councilman Harry “Tommy” Thomas (Ward 5-much of northeast) is threatening to hold the advertisers of a small Brookland newspaper “accountable for [their] role in underwriting the Brookland Heartbeat.”
The newspaper’s “crime” was to report that Councilman Thomas isn’t that great at securing neighborhood improvements from the city government. Thomas’s objections do not dispute any of the facts of the news story, which was widely distributed in Ward 5 in July.
Though Thomas’s letter stating his objections is obviously a political stunt, what is most worrying (and possibly illegal) is his threat to hold the paper’s advertisers “accountable,” without specifying what that means.
Does Thomas plan to exert undue pressure to deny these businesses their rightful licenses? Does he intend to send city inspectors on daily fishing expeditions to look for trifling violations?
This veiled threat is inexcusable and should be investigated by the appropriate ethics authorities in the city government. Such ambiguous threats run the risk of chilling political debate among citizens. Who will stick his neck out and rightly criticize those in power if losing his livelihood is a consequence?
Median sales prices for homes are dropping nationwide and assessments are rightly dropping with them. This comes as good news to taxpayers, but the DC city council is annoyed that the tax assessment appeals board is granting appeals.
In a meeting with Gandhi yesterday, D.C. Council members questioned whether the quasi-independent appeals board has enough real estate expertise and whether it is caving too quickly to property owners.
“Do we feel the need to explain to the board that what they do directly affects our revenues?” asked council Chairman Vincent C. Gray (D).
Some members suggested changing the format and composition of the board.
So according to Vincent Gray and other members of the council, the assessment board is supposed to politicize assessments to suit the council’s fiscal indiscipline. The council could always just raise the tax rate to compensate for the loss, but that would prove politically unpopular; it’s always easier to scapegoat the tax collector.
Image source: LA Times
Much has been made of the surprise passage of California’s Proposition 8, which amended the Declaration of Rights of the state’s Constitution to state that “[o]nly marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” What hasn’t received much attention, however, is that the city council of Washington, DC, may move in the coming months to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples. In the past, the main obstacle cited is Congress; even if the city council approved a same-sex marriage bill (probably with near-unanimity), Congress, which has legislative authority to overturn any DC law, would overturn it in a heartbeat.
But since the Democrats now control Congress and the White House, the city now faces the best opportunity to introduce a marriage bill that would face the lowest chance of Federal opposition. However, even if the measure escaped a snarling Congress, the measure would likely face stiff opposition from a large bloc of city residents. If the civil rights measure is put to popular vote in Washington, DC, voters may in fact reject it.
Since there are no public opinion polls of District residents gauging opposition to same-sex marriage in the city, it is hard to predict how a ballot question would fare. However, if we extrapolate November’s exit-poll results on Proposition 8 from California, the civil rights landscape in DC looks a little bleak.
In the best scenario, a DC vote would reflect the results among California’s urban voters. Forty-five percent of California’s urban voters opposed Proposition 8. Since all DC voters qualify as urban voters, if the proportions voting for and against held the same, a ban would lose.
(All the following data are drawn from CNN’s exit-poll of California and extrapolated based on each cohort’s share of the DC electorate as provided by MSNBC’s exit-poll of DC)
If we extrapolate from other measures, the outlook isn’t as good. Based on income group, the results show a ban would just squeak by. Interestingly, among all income groups, only those making less than $30,000 and those making more than $150,000 opposed Proposition 8 by a majority. The vast middle supported it. Now if we multiple each group’s support and opposition in California by each income group’s respective proportion of the DC electorate, a same-sex marriage ban would pass in DC by a slight majority.
It gets worse.
In California, 53% of college graduates opposed Proposition 8, whereas only 42% of those without college degrees opposed it. Though 58% of District voters are college graduates, that is still not enough to stop a ballot measure in the city. Based on education, a ballot measure in DC would ban same-sex marriage with a 52% majority.
Finally, race is the pink elephant in the room few want to bring up. Traditionally, black voters, gays, and those with socially liberal views overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. However, on the issue of homosexuality, one Democratic constituency, blacks, holds views strong opposed to those held by other Democratic constituencies (social liberals, gays, etc.).
An astounding 70% of California’s black voters cast ballots in favor of Proposition 8 and an even more astounding 75% of black women voted in favor. Proposition 8 only found greater support among self-identified 2004 Bush voters (80%), white evangelicals (81%), Republicans (82%), McCain voters (84%), weekly churchgoers (84%), conservatives (85%), and those who approve of the war in Iraq (85%), among others.
When we extrapolate each ethnic group’s vote in California to adjust it for each group’s proportion of the DC electorate, a same-sex marriage ban easily passes by 61% of the popular vote in the District.
Admittedly, California and DC, though both Democratic strongholds, differ in some important ways. DC is entirely urban, whereas California is home to urbanites, a huge portion of suburbanites, and sizable rural counties. Furthermore, unlike DC, California is more ideologically diverse and contains some very conservative areas (San Diego and Orange Counties, most notably) as well as liberal enclaves such as San Francisco, Hollywood, and Berkeley. Washington’s singlemindedness leans decidely leftward, but in California the tilt, though still to the left, has counteracting forces that DC largely lacks.
Nonetheless, it’s premature for the city council and gay civil rights campaigners to assume that everyone shares the same view of what constitutes a civil right. Though same-sex marriage might not raise eyebrows in upper Northwest, not all DC residents are ready to embrace a progressive view of marriage. When the council starts to debate such a measure, don’t be surprised when you hear opponents ironically claiming civil rights for me, but not for thee.
Topics: Civil Rights & Human Rights, Class, Demography, Prejudice, The Election, Washington
The Post reports what everyone else suspects: few members of the board that oversees Metro are regular riders. Furthermore, many of those same board members drive to the Metro board meetings at WMATA headquarters and don’t bother to pay for the privilege of parking there. This news comes as the board considers cutting service in the face of a constricted budget and rising operating costs.
Sadly, it should not come as much of a surprise that those in the position to shape transit policy themselves don’t even ride the very systems they advocate. Members of Congress afford themselves massive surface parking lots on the Capitol grounds and even a car allowance financed by the taxpayer. Even liberals such as former HHS-nominee Tom Daschle wouldn’t be caught dead bearing the indigities of one of America’s most extensive transit networks.
When those in power are disconnected from the consequences of their policies, there exists less of an incentive for careful consideration. DC Councilman and WMATA board chair Jim Graham unwittingly proved this point very well: “Few D.C. Council members have children in the city’s public schools, [Graham] said, ‘but we all vote on the budget. We’re all engaged.’”
And what a fine job they’ve done!
President's Levee, or All Creation Going to the White House, Washington, March 4, 1829, available via the Library of Congress.
The D.C. City Council voted to extend, just for the inauguration, the hours during which bars and clubs may serve alcohol. Some city residents objected to the hastily passed bill and the mayor has qualified his support. Nonetheless, the legislation will likely become law.
Cue the teetotalers!
Two members of the Senate, the body to which District residents are deprived the right to send representation, have objected to the plan. Sens. Feinstein (D-CA) and Bennett (R-UT, surprise, surprise) fret like John Stuart Mill—who, coincidentally, served in the House of Commons—asserting “that the benefits of this emergency legislation, passed with little public notice, are far outweighed by its possible consequences.”
These Senators do no represent the District and should not horn-in on the city’s democracy. Furthermore, the city cannot be expected to pass-up the expected windfall in tax revenue this inauguration will generate. In these tough economic circumstances, who doesn’t want outside visitors to empty their pockets into one’s local treasury?
Having abolished the death penalty decades ago, the only taking of lives in Washington occurs without the privilege of a trial. Graphing the city’s homicides of 2007 is quite revealing. Notice that the section of the city west of 16th Street NW suffered only two murders last years even though this section is the most densely populated part of the city.
Capitol Hill appears as an oasis of civility engulfed by death. In some areas, though, the looks may be deceiving: the area just west of Brookland may look safe, but much of that land, just like Fort McNair along the southern stretch of the Potomac, is limited-access military land. Large parks, such as Rock Creek Park in Northwest and Fort Dupont Park in Southeast are also murder-free, though probably due to their isolation.
Though savage violence is nothing new to the District, few are aware of how lopsided the geographic distribution of the violence is.
Washington's Security Theater
How the fear of terrorism limits public access and wrecks Washington's elegance.