July 20, 2006
Fenty Casts Lonesome Vote, and Wins
The big story in the news this morning was that the D.C. Council had quickly approved a bill granting D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams a set of new and controversial tools to crack down on violent crime. But a secondary story has appeared that may actually have more of a life than the details of the legislation — the lone dissenting vote cast by council-member and mayoral contender Adrian Fenty (D-Ward 4).
What makes Fenty's vote newsworthy is that as the rest of the council played easy politics and voted for the measures (thus assuring that they can break out the law and order card come election time), he stood his ground and expressed his principled opposition to a solution he saw more as cosmetic than comprehensive. And in refusing to bow down to the knee-jerk legislation proposed by Williams and pushed by fellow mayoral hopeful Linda Cropp, Fenty presented himself as a thinker, a politician more interested in solutions than the appearance of solutions. As quoted by the Post:
I think people know that these are not ways to solve crime. At best, we're tinkering around the edges. At worst, we are putting forth that we are doing something about a crime emergency when everyone in this room knows that we are not.And, similarly, in the Washington Times:
There is great pressure on this government to do something about crime right now. The opportunity cost of voting for this measure without any serious proposal to address crime in the community is giving away our leverage. At the end of the day we will have voted on ... no more officers on the street, no more innovative ways of dealing with crime, no more aggressive prosecution, just a few feel-good measures.
Cropp, Williams, and the rest of the council got what they wanted — a quick vote in the midst of their summer recess. But did the city get good public policy? Likely not. There still exists debate over the role that juveniles have played in the recent spate of violent crimes (all but one of the suspects in Alan Senitt's killing were above the age of 18), thus leaving the curfew's efficacy in question. Furthermore, street cameras are not necessarily effective crime fighting tools, and the choice of their placement is sure to provoke heated debate. Finally, and most importantly, no one has actually questioned who it is that is demanding that the council act this quickly and with such measures. Is it residents of Wards 2 and 3, which are primarily white, affluent, and shocked at a killing in their midst? Or are residents across the city seeking more comprehensive action on crime? If so, is this what they envisioned?
The chances are that Cropp will now go on the offensive against Fenty, using the time-honored tradition of accusing him of being soft on crime. That just won't fly. Cropp used the recent crimes as a means to promote her candidacy, and she did so at the expense of reasoned debate and solutions. Fenty saw this as an issue worth debating for more than just seven hours. These are just the kind of decisions we should all take into account when deciding who to vote for this fall.
|
Mary Cheh, GWU Law Professor and candidate for Ward 3 Council has issued a release denoucing the bill. For more information:
http://www.marycheh2006.com/
Fenty did the right thing. Too bad he is still a wish washy politician masquerading as the “people’s candidate”.
This city is screwed up.
I have to say Fenty is now my leading candidate. Everyone else is just giving lip service, as usual. It took guts to be the lone dissenter.
I like Cheh's ideas, and unlike most of the current board members, she actually has some experience in the field.
I do think cameras can work in some circumstances, take, for example, the smaller city parks. Many are totally unusable because of drug dealing, homeless encampments, etc. I doubt too many parents will want to take their kids to see the duck pond on 6th SW when there is chance you will see, in broad daylight on a Sunday, a homeless drunk urinating in the pond (as I did a few weeks ago).
Have you ever seen US Park Police officers patrolling these parks? I never have and when I have inquired about it I was told that responsibilites at larger parks and the parkways leave too few officers to patrol neighborhood parks. As for MPD, well it isn't technically in their jurisdiction and there is no way they are going to get out of their cars and actually walk through the parks.
Cameras may be answer in these small parks and may allow the residents of the city to reclaim these vital parts of the city.
I knew that DCist was biased toward Fenty, but I did think that it was still a "news" source. Mixing in heavily biased editorials such as this with the more neutral news is an invitation to be disrespected as a source for news and will likely turn readers away, rather than on. This article was simplistic, uninformed, based only on hunches, and rife with absolutes. I hope that anyone reading with it will serve it up with not only a grain, but with a huge salt lick! DCist dropped at least a couple of rungs on my ladder of respect.
Fenty is pandering once again, this time to the kids, and they can't vote. Fool.
Tim: it didn't take guts. Fenty is savvy enough to know which way the wind blows and take a pointless stand when he knows it's not actually going to change anything. If it had been a close vote, *then* you could say that it took guts. As it happened, this is just more posturing from Fenty, and posturing is what he does second-best, behind self-aggrandizement.
If Fenty is such a "thinker," shouldn't he have offered a solution?
If he's going to say the Mayor and Council are "tinkering around the edges," shouldn't he offer a solution that gets to the heart of the problem?
But Fenty never does. All he does is criticize without ever offering solutions. He plays politics. He's the master of the strong but empty statement -- or at least a close second to George W. Bush.
Perhaps Fenty's affordable housing program is to let street crime rampage unabatted until enough people and businesses decide to pack up and leave that housing prices go down due to lack of demand. Do we really want DC to become a Federal Enclave surrounded by a hollow, dangerous core?
Kudos to Marion Barry 2.0 for standing his ground. I wonder how dedicated he'll be to civil liberties around the end of August with another 40+ residents dead in the streets?
It's like 1989 all over again. Look out, Detroit and East St. Louis! DC's gonna git that Murder Capital mantle back if it kills all the white folk in Shaw!
For a very different take on this Fenty move, check out the City Desk blog over at Washington City Paper.
Not to be picky BUT homicides in DC are DOWN 3% YTD -- while in cities like Chicago, Houston and Dallas (not sure about Detroit this year just yet) homicides are Up, Up, Up. IMO since the so-called "crime emergency" scare last week things have actually been kind of quiet around town. Obviously, one night or two could shatter the tentative, new found calm BUT people seem to forget that July has (and will always be) the bloodiest month in our fair city. Heat and humidity have a way of really pissing people off -- though even w/ the extra crime and extra sweat it beats February hands down!
This is exactly what I am afraid of with Fenty. After learning about the dubious Sinclair Skinner connection at http://www.dumpskinner.com, I'm not surprised one bit by this move.
I could just picture Skinner standing on a soapbox proclaiming that this legislation is racist against black youths.
Michelle, what is your relationship to Amy Robertson, Larry Seftor, Johnson Murphy, and whoever else has been spamming various e-mail lists to publicize the dumpskinner.com site, and whose campaign are you all associated with?
I just TOTALLY lost all faith in Fenty. I want "new" blood...but not "bad" blood. He has a LONG way to go in order to represent MY city as Mayor. He has LOST my vote...
Marc J. in Brookland- Park Place NE
The Council did not enact a perfect solution; but as temporary measure, the legislation has a great deal of merit. With all due respect for those who say that curfews and cameras are not adequate, there is a wealth of expert opinion and a stack of evidence from other cities that such action is very helpful. Further the Council included provisions for more police officers; intensive job training programs for at-risk citizens, including young people; targeting gangs; expanding recreation and street education programs; offering housing and job assistance; creating recreation programs; establishing gun buy back programs; coordinating with ANC and ward council members in installing cameras. The testimony at the hearing overwhelming showed that the legislation was needed. This emergency legislation does not prevent future efforts and permanent programs. Adrian Fenty, who has once again opposed legislation, without offering any alternatives, simply says it is all a political stunt. (I suggest that his opposition is pandering to a select group of his supporters.) But if he thinks that the Council and Mayor and the Police Chief and the experts who supported this legislation are acting only for political reasons then he fails to understand that the crime issue in the District is serious and needs to be addressed in every way possible. The Council was responding to a problem, election or no election. Fenty opposes without the slightest understanding as to what is involved in regards to peoples lives and safety. He is so lacks experience and a foundation to make important decisions, that it is scary to even think that he could be in charge of an eight billion dollar budget.
Fenty continues to prove he should not be Mayor. His NO vote takes little courage and less brains.
Wasn't planning on voting in the election.
This makes changs my mind, just to vote against such a great "thinker" like Fenty. Truly the Spinoza of our time!
So what is Fenty's answer to the crime problem? What is he offering that's going to decrease the chances of me getting shot, stabbed, beaten or robbed on the street? What is he offering that would lower the probability of my car being stolen or vandalized (again), or my house being broken into (again)? what is he offering that will shut down the seemingly thriving drug market 4 blocks down the street from me? As a council member, it's easy to ``oppose'' legislation and look like you're ``standing up'' for your residents and civil liberties, but as mayor he's got to offer up solutions of his own (and convince voters he's capable of getting his solutions through the council) - something that I have yet to read about him doing. If he's got ideas, I for one am ready to listen... Still waiting.
Shelley,
The question you should be asking is what will the legislation passed do to stop getting shot, stabbed, beaten or robbed on the street. The truth is not much. Crime is a much more complicated issue than the D.C. Council gave credit for, and I think Fenty realized that. He may not have proposed alternatives, but that doesn't mean they don't exist or that he doesn't have any to propose. The legislation was presented to be railroaded through the council. There wasn't space for real debate. Williams and Cropp wanted this passed, and they got it.
I met Fenty when he came to address our community association last year at the start of his campaign. To say that I was less than impressed would be putting it mildly. He managed to agree with everything that anyone said but agree to nothing at the same time. It was impossible to determine what he actually stood for. He is nothing but more of the same. The only candidate that I feel brings some real-world experience to the table is Marie Johns and unfortunatelly she may not even make it to the general election ... So I will have to write in a vote (can't decide between Mickey or Minnie Mouse).
Setting aside Fenty for a moment, we should all be appalled at how readily the Countil adopted this measure. You don't have to spend much time with the city's crime statistics to realize that the District isn't spinning out of control--quite the opposite, actually. Crime has dropped steadily for the past ten years in D.C., and, as an earlier commenter pointed out, even with the early July upsurge, 2006 is 3% behind the 2005 homicide pace, and 2005 was a two decade low for that crime.
Still, these occasional outbreaks do indicate that there are social problems in the city we need to address. It seems to me that the worse way to address them is to adopt a few ill-considered measures that will restrict the civil liberties of the city's least fortunate and do very little to stop crime.
The person we should be flaming here, is Mayor Williams, who's sat on his hands for years, hoping that attracting new investment would magically make other issues disappear. Now, folks are outraged over a few heavily covered homicides in NW, and the Mayor wants to march out the cops and cameras. This is not the way to run a healthy city, folks. In a city where lots of things are going well, our attitude should be, first do no harm, and Williams' crime bill fails that test, big time.
That's my point Martin, what are the alternatives? Am I supposed to wait months, years to get a solution? Fenty has been campaigning for months now, if he has solutions to the crime problems to propose, why not put them out there NOW for debate. What's he waiting for? He took a stand this week against someone else's idea. So what? I guess that reflects some degree of moral character, but I'm not sure how that helps me, and it didn't really clear up my confusion over what his approach as mayor would be to reducing crime, increasing patrols and improving MPD's dismal success rate of solving murder and robbery investigations. In short, I still have no idea how Fenty would make DC safer. I'm not a fool, I don't think, and no one I've talked to thinks, this legislation will solve DC's ills, and I too see this as somewhat of a political stunt to favor cropp's campaign, but at least it's something to get the ball rolling.
Ryan-
How can you say that the Williams has been anything but good for the city?
He has been mayor for 8 years.
Is the city nicernow in nearly every single aspect now than it was 8 years ago?
were you even here 8 years ago?
Fenty is far too young, inexperienced, and wishy-washy to lead this city. But who to vote for instead? Linda Cropp?
Shelley,
I'm pretty sure Fenty has a record on the D.C. Council when it comes to voting on police and safety issues. And like I said, I don't think this charade was supposed to be a debate on real issues or good solutions.
As Ryan points out, I take issue with us throwing up our hands and screaming "Emergency!" Yes, there has been a spate of violent crime in the last month. But is it any different than in years past? From what I remember, no. Summer months are more dangerous. And so the council has enacted measures for an emergency that hasn't really been debated. That's just foolish.
I don't agree with Fenty on everything, much less do I think he'd be a great mayor. But on this issue, I think he was the one person that was level-headed.
MLF, the city is nicer now than it was 8 years ago, and the Mayor deserves a lot of credit for that. There's a big difference in faulting the Mayor for his actions on certain issues and believing his time in office has been a waste.
It's lovely that D.C. is growing and attracting investment. That doesn't give us permission to ignore the difficulties of those who have not benefitted as much from that growth. It certainly does not give us permission to slap restrictive and unnecessary police measures on those who have not benefitted just so those who have can feel a little better.
I guess the Council vote got the ball rolling and showed that the District is serious in combating crime. The feds have heard, and at the urging of D.C. authorities and the council members, the Dept. of Justice is forming a Violent Crime Task Force to combat the surge of robberies and violent offenses starting Friday afternoon. The force is led by DC Police Dept. and includes FBI, Secret Service, Bureau of ATF and Drug Enforcement authorities, as well as police from US Park police, Metro Transit, Cap. Hill and US Marshals Service. Air surveillance, cell phone tracking will be used. Prosecutors will work around the clock at Ct.House to keep up with arrests and deal with repeat offenders. Youth violators will be processed. Gun dealers are targeted. Outstanding fugitives will be rounded up. D.C. police will develop campaigns to reach out to parents and businesses. The Council was right in starting the ball rolling. Mr. Fenty once again showed he was uninformed and had no viable suggestions to offer.
The crime bill had one decent idea- that cameras could be used- but on whole the bill itself was the thing that pandered to voters. Fenty deserves credit for voting against it. He was not only level headed, he was honest.
N's statements are pretty, but they don't reflect an understanding of reality. Reality is that we don't even enforce the laws that are currently on the books. The curfew, for example, was 11 PM weeknights during the school year, and 12 AM during the summer. Does anyone who lives in a neighborhood with lots of kids recall that being enforced? I guess it's nice the Feds are getting involved, the council and the administration have frankly fallen flat. It's a failure of vision.
Reality is that we also don't prioritize (by putting cash in the budget) good options for these kids. Where do we expect these children, many whom are from abusive households and are now damaged goods, to hang out except in the streets? How many midnight basketball programs remain? Maybe one or two per ward? The summer jobs program is great, if you're 14 or over, but how are we addressing the needs and occupying the time of children under 14? Sure, ideally their parents would be doing this, but that, too, is not the reality.
Reality, and if you speak with police brass who have run the stats, they will confirm this, is that the under 14 demographic is even more troubled than the one before it. Kids aged as young as 6 or 7 are running in proto-gangs, stealing, mugging, and beating folks. I'm not exaggerating and have seen it many times in "Columbia Heights East". We completely lack the tools to deal with the (very real, Martin) issue of youth crime. And while this fact greatly worries me today in my neighborhood, you readers in G'Town (to take a stereotype example) need to concern yourselves with social programs here and now. These kids will show up on YOUR doorstep tomorrow.
I am thoroughly disgusted by this article. It is because of Fenty that we have so much recidivism in juvenile crime.
Fenty touted whole-heartedly the nomination of Vincent Schiraldi as director of Oak Hill (the juvenile detention center). Schiraldi said to the Washington Post that he was going to use "more honey and less vinegar." Fenty couldn't agree more.
Fenty's honey for criminals have caused my friends and I to be robbed at gunpoint, my neighbor's homes to be burglarized, and my boyfriend's car to be broken into.
Fenty IS SOFT on crime. He lives in Crestwood. Have him live in a neighborhood where crime happens all hours of the day. Maybe then he'll see how stupid his ideals are.
MARTIN - shame on you for your endorsement.
I am thoroughly disgusted by this article. It is because of Fenty that we have so much recidivism in juvenile crime.
Fenty's honey for criminals have caused my friends and I to be robbed at gunpoint, my neighbor's homes to be burglarized, and my boyfriend's car to be broken into.
These comments are patently and absolutely misguided and ridiculous. You've managed to narrow down a very complex social issue to one man who, truth be told, is part of a council of 13 members.
I feel very sorry for your situation, but it does not merit such an uninformed response.
First of all, RKC, Adrian Fenty didn't cause anybody to commit any crimes. He didn't take them out and direct them to commit evil.
Second, Schiraldi's only been on the job for a year, maybe 18 months. What do you think was going to happen in that time? Forced lobotomies? Summary executions? Given the underlying pathologies, there's no way that 18 months is enough to end juvenile "recidivism."
The "crime emergency" bill, as written (and as has been stated repeatedly in these comments), would do little or nothing to actually deter juvenile crime - at best, ideally, in a perfect world, it would help catch perpetrators. The idea that it would provide any element of deterrence is wishful thinking, without any data. The action taken by the council - the action you seem to think is so much at odds with what Adrian Fenty's done - would not have prevented any robberies at gunpoint, break-ins, or burglaries. So where is the basis for screaming about it here?
What neighborhood "where crime happens" would suffice to calm your jangled nerves? Should Fenty move to Georgetown? Adams Morgan? East of the river? Where? (In addition, don't some council members have to come from other neighborhoods, in order to represent all of the city's wards? Would you have them unable to vote on crime bills?)
Jim (#33)-
Fenty should move to Maryland or Virginia...
If only DC had a white mayor like Jack Evans, then everything would be perfect!
If you're a VA resident keep your fingers off the keyboard. This is our business, our election and our choice. Pay attention to your own representatives and your own politics. How's that Metro funding going by the way? Oh and I hear you almost defaulted on your debt, something DC hasn't done in many, many a year. Yet still VA enjoys Wall Street's affection and great bond rating. Luckily for you MS-13 seems to have colonized your suburbs and is hastily movibng to assert control. Love that suburban gangland warefare?
And MD, try not to re-elect Ehrlich, who's clearly in the running for most crony packing pol since Bush II or Marion Barry himself. He's spent 4 years prattling on about slots, slots, slots and not lifted a finger to improve the state. How about looking in your own backyard before spraying your dung in ours?
"If you're a VA resident keep your fingers off the keyboard. This is our business, our election and our choice."
Also, not a registered Democrat? Suck on it! Your vote ain't worth zilch! We run a Democracy with a capital "D" here, and no independents, third-partiers, or Republicans are going to have a say in who's their mayor, goddamnit!
Reid wrote:
You aren't truly disenfranchised unless you're a District resident who's registered Republican. I should know.
Although since I haven't yet been convicted of a felony I guess there's one further step I could take.
A DC republican not yet convicted of a felony? Since you allow for the "not yet" qualification, I guess that you've got a lot of company in high places! ;)
Republicans need to and deserve to feel like a minority now and then. Maybe it might make you treat other people better, not that I'm holding my breath. Besides the GOP controls plenty of states; I hear Texas is lovely this time of year.
copperred wrote:
He don't know me very well, do he?
What? You don't have to be a registered Republican to have no choice in the mayor, you just have to be someone not registered with the Democratic Party. You can be independent, Green, Whig, whatever, the point is that without open primaries (like, say, they have in VA) the general election is a sham.
And copperred, I think you completely missed my point (and by your weird logic, DC Democrats must have no idea how to treat people and really deserve to be in the minority now. But I digress) My point is that a significant minority of the DC population is effectively disenfranchised for every vote except the two non-Democrat at-large seats. This happens in a lot of towns (my own home town is lopsided to one party and the First Selectman is basically just chosen by the party committee). And it is unfortunate in each. Is is unconstitutional? No. Is it the Democratic Party's fault for having such advantage? No, good for them. But it just seems that a town so focused on the human right to representation should be more sensitive to giving people who choose not to register with the Democratic Party a voice in who their mayor is. Open primaries would accomplish this.
And on a more practical level, I think our government will become more responsive to the people if more voters' opinions matter. And you can believe that if we had open primaries, Marion Barry would not have been reelected in 94.
You're not going to get cooties from registering as a Democrat, so stop whining in DCist threads and just do it. I can understand that it might be distasteful if you're violently opposed to the Democratic Party, but in that case voting in the Democratic primary should be distasteful even if it were open.
I don't see why the Democratic party should be obliged to open its primary to everyone just because the other parties can't get their acts together to be competitive in DC.
That said, I wouldn't be opposed to the idea of eliminating the primary and having a free-for-all similar to what they have in Louisiana, with maybe five Democrats running against two Republicans, a Statehood Green, and an independent -- except that I'd prefer to have an instant runoff rather than having a separate election to choose between the top two if no one gets a majority. But there's no reason the Democrats would ever agree to such a thing.
The point, KC, is not that I think it's distasteful to register as a Democrat, it's that I find it distasteful to register with any party just to have a say in whole my mayor is. I've said this repeatedly that I don't think the Democratic party is obliged to do this. I just think that it's a bad thing and our city would get better leaders if everyone who decides to vote can do so without having to join a private organization.
Let me turn around your question: is the Democratic Party going to get cooties from letting me vote? Do you honestly think a Democratic candidate voted for by Democrats and non-Democrats alike will lose the general election?
Also, I agree that an even better answer would be to scrap the primary system entirely.
And if advocating for quixotic causes is somehow offensive to you, I've got a statehood movement I'd love to introduce you to.
I still don't understand why having to vote in this private organization's primary in order to have a say in who your mayor is would be acceptable to you just as long as you don't have to tick a box on your registration form to do it. You object on principle to the idea of registering as a Democrat, but you have no problem with doing the main thing people do when they register as Democrats: partipating in the selection of the Democratic Party's candidate. That seems inconsistent.
I'm not concerned about the quixoticity of your cause. It just seems that if you're going to ask for a solution you're unlikely to get, you might just as well ask for a solution that makes more sense -- a competitive alternative party, say, or elimination of the primary system.
I confused Reid:
While your first sentence is absolutely correct, your second one goes a bit farther than I would care to. Our electoral system marginalizes any party beyond two to the extent that I believe anybody who registers in any alternative party (or as an independent, for that matter) knows, and deserves, what he or she gets. My own rhetoric was intended more to point out (humorously, at which I apparently failed) that my vote counts neither locally (since the mayor is selected in the Democratic primary) nor nationally (that whole taxation without representation thing).
And as for KCinDC's comment:
I wouldn't say I'm opposed to the point of violence, but I do in fact find the whole process (of electing a mayor and council in DC) distateful whether I'm voting in the primary or not. And that's why I complain on DCist threads. Whether I happen to disagree with more of the national Democratic Party platform than I do with the national Republican Party platform is somewhat immaterial if we're talking about the mayoral race, 'cause I happen to think that none of the Democratic candidates is worthy of a vote.
Now, if Dan Tangherlini were somehow running, I might consider it. But not for Fenty or Cropp. Bleh. And my registered-Democrat girlfriend plans to write in Carol Schwartz, so I know it's not just me.
I'd much rather just scrap the primaries all together. The most obvious reason being that voter turnout is going to be a lot higher in November than September, therefore the goal of having a mayor chosen by all is more likely to be achieved. Further still, I'd prefer ranked voting (which would encourage the growth of a second, or third party while still enabling dissenters a choice among likely winners).
And yes I see the inconsistency in wanting to participate in the primary but not wanting to join up. But I am just reacting to the situation as it is: namely your vote doesn't matter unless you join a club. Since I don't want to join a club, what do I do to have my and similar people's votes count? Open the primaries. And like I pointed out above, there are practical reasons to either scrap the primaries or open them: more people would participate, which would be a good thing
The only reason I advocate for open primaries is because of the very fact that it seems entirely more obtainable than getting rid of the primary completely. Somehow 21 states have open primaries and still they manage to survive. Even Virginia does it. So-called mischief voting (i.e. voting for a loser on purpose so the other party will win) is practically nonexistant. What happens is that more borderline people will switch over to the other party when an attractive candidate comes along, whom they'll also probably stick with in the general election. This results in more moderate and less polarizing elected officials.
And frankly, whether primaries are open or not is not the Democratic party's choice to make in the first place, so whether it's in their interest is beside the point. If the city council decided that it was in our interests to open the primaries, they could do so, even if the Democratic party objected. That won't happen of course. However, Congress could force them open. I'd prefer it not come to that, but it's always a possibility.
What the lone Councilmember Fenty voted against:
# $8 million to put 300 more officers on the streets right now with 6 day shifts
# 2.5 million for the Department of Employment Services for a 33-week, intensive job training program for at-risk citizens, including in-school youth, the homeless, and those battling substance abuse.
# $380,000 for an additional 100 youth for an effective Partnership for Success program which includes:
# $200,000 for targeted gang/crew mediation in targeted neighborhoods
# $70,000 to expand recreation and street outreach in targeted neighborhoods
# $50,000 for the Gang Intervention Partnership with the police
# $200,000 for adult reintry programs including housing and job assistance
# $250,000 to initiate a gun buy back program
# $1.2 million to fund recreation programs
So is the DC Crime Bill really about camera and political postures which in light of the facts is not just soft on crime but now taking away monies from all of these other programs.