Morning Roundup: Deadly Weekend Edition

Colombia's vice president is "baffled" by Kate Moss's success following cocaine allegations...

Colombia's vice president is "baffled" by Kate Moss's success following cocaine allegations...

Colombia's vice president is "baffled" by Kate Moss's success following cocaine allegations...

Mark:

I don't have stats at my fingertips, but it's a safe bet that most newcomers to DC settle in the 'burbs.

The major difference between those neighborhoods you mention and DC neighborhoods: the DC government experience. It still really sucks to be paying a kajillion bucks for a DC residence and have the surly and often worthless DC government to deal with.

And when you call the police in Old Town Alexandria, they actually show up. Here in DC, it's a crapshoot at best.

Brookland - you still are taking your life in your own hands at night there. A friend recently graduated from Catholic U.... she's not a timid girl, and she was terrified of Brookland at night. Lots of stuff happens around Catholic at night, and not a lot of it gets reported....

And I can't speak for Gaithersburg, but OT Alexandria and Del Ray have a sizeable white population already. Whether we like it or not, that makes a big difference to a lot of new residents.

I completely agree with K's statement on the redevelopment throughout Georgia Ave. I know because I live on Georgia and Harvard and I see the boarded up houses and numerous liquor stores on daily basis.

And as for the Curfew:

It's a good idea, but it will still not in various neighborhoods in the city.

I completely agree with K's statement on the redevelopment throughout Georgia Ave. I know because I live on Georgia and Harvard and I see the boarded up houses and numerous liquor stores on daily basis.

And as for the Curfew:

It's a good idea, but it will still not in various neighborhoods in the city.

OOPS. didn't proofread. I meant to say...

should 13 or 14 year olds be wandering around the streets of DC unaccompanied, after 10, at any time? crime emergency or not?

Curfew:

In most neighborhoods, this so called curfew is not gonna change a damn thing.

Petworth Development:

Let's be honest Petworth residents--what the area needs is a total redevelopment of Georgia Ave from New Hampshire down to Howard University. There's a vast number of vacant lots and boarded up buildings on Georgia Ave, right now is effectively an eyesore. Nothing more than crap liquor stores, second rate grocery shops. I won't even discuss that nasty titty bar where they show Redskins games when it's football season.

There's maybe a handful of stores in there that are useful ie a couple of decent barber shops and that record store that sold me Ghostface Killah's "Fishscale" the day before it's street release.

I'm not asking for Whole Foods and Starbucks, I'm asking for proper quality and useful businesses. A bunch of condos and crap coffee shops or pointless boutiques aren't going to cut it (coughCOLUMBIAHEIGHTScough). I mean, who really needs a UPS store or a Carvel?

Um, the suggestion that 13- and 14-year-old kids should never be left unsupervised is just sort of insane.

Actually, Park Place is not the only new development happening at the Petworth stop. There's a number of new construction projects planned for the immediate area, as well as a number of good new businesses. Park Place will change a lot of the neighborhood (I think, for the better), but a lot of that change is also already happening.

Interesting commentary......

The new Park Place development will sit directly across the street from an existing apartment building of equal height (6 stories). I don't see how it will be towering over that one. There are (plenty) other multi-story apartment buildings fronting Georgia Avenue and New Hampshire Avenue in the immediate vicinity of the new development.

Also, I thought eyesores were more along the lines of abandoned and neglected properties. No? Architecturally, Park Place does a good job blending the new modern elements of the building while acknowledging the historic elements of the neighborhood.

This development, directly on Georgia Avenue, right above the Petworth Metro Station, will coax other developers into action in the neighbourhood. And, I thought Georgia Avenue is a miles-long thoroughfare in DC. No? Georgia Avenue can definitely handle more density such as with the Park Place development.

There always has to be a test development to guage the waters for future developmental success. Park Place is exactly that test for the Petworth neighborhood.

should 13 or 14 year olds be wandering around the streets of DC unaccompanied at any time?

Curfew:

Perhaps this comes as a relief for the kids. It's been hot as the Congo outside lately. Even on the late night tip.

New Development @ Georgia Ave/Petworth:

I walk past that lot every day on my way home. I don't think it's going to change much. On the contrary, it's just going to be an eyesore towering over the endless lanes of row houses.

If anything that development should go into Georgia Ave: a block that has more liquor stores and crap groceries than necessary.

One should note that a lot of people are putting more time and money into their cribs these days. It's nice to see some of the more neglected homes getting a much needed facelift.

Hillman:

"We may get 60,000 new residents in the DC area per year, but it's a safe bet that the considerable majority would never consider living in any of these areas in DC, even if we could prove for years that serious crime was no longer a problem."

I'm not so sure about that. I'd point to old downtown Gaithersburg, Old Town Alexandria and Del Ray, and other long-established and much desired communities as examples of where people who currently would not consider living in DC very much like to settle. Nothing's very much different between them and places like Michigan Park or Brookland or Old Anacostia. Where people would consider living in large part is based on practicality.

And if it's a house that costs double east of the river, owned by a black person that isn't keen on the white man and his evil gentrification unless apparently it helps him personally, or a condo that cost double sold to white yuppies in Logan, is it still evil gentrification?

Just fine without you:

Have you considered that your 100%/2 years appreciation might be in large part due to economic pressures in the rest of the (gentrified) city and suburgs pushing up your housing value? Something so little as a bridged-river doesn't mean you're isolated...

A hero? Why, I'd blush but I'd be the only one to see it, so I'll refrain.

Ghettoburb - you are right, you did make a reference to race. But the racist poster went waaaaay beyond that.

Race is of course almost always a factor in DC. And the city (and the nation as a whole) has had a shameful history when it comes to race. And when it comes to class.

But that doesn't excuse the kind of crap that we so often hear now - outright racism on the part of DC residents against the influx of others that are not black (and, oddly, against blacks from countries other than the US.... even though I guess technically that's not racism). If this were white people making these sorts of statements, the reaction would be fast and furious. It's no less inappropriate because it comes from blacks.

I for one am tired of the double standard. I've lived my life trying to treat everyone as equals, and giving the benefit of the doubt to many groups. My parents lost their jobs and many friends when they stood up for black civil rights in the 60s. So it galls me a bit to hear blacks getting away with crap that we as a nation and as individuals have fought so hard to put an end to.

I think "whitey" was in reference to my previous post, where I used it as a synonym for "gentrifier," as the two are often equated, erroneously or not.

hillman is my hero.

Don't need whitey?

Now, change that up a bit.

You'd be outraged if anyone said 'we don't need blackie'.

Racism is racism. And that 'don't need whitey' statement was racist.

And while you can certainly speak for yourself, I'm not sure you can really speak for all the black people east of the river.

Last, no one suggested white people were going to try to invade your neighborhood, as you seem to believe.

We merely suggested that east of the river (and other areas) would benefit greatly from a crime reduction.

What part of that did you interpret as 'whitey'?

As for 'current residents' (which appears to be code for current black residents only), neighborhoods change. It's a natural, never-ending cycle, especially in cities.

let me speak for the black folks who lives east of the river. we are not over here dreaming of "whitey" to come over here and buy houses. we will get ourselves straightened out. I am a homeowner in congress heights, monterey park subdivision. I bought in 2004 at 204,000, just got appraised last month at 400,000. so as you can see, WE DONT NEED WHITEY! but we do need to get our act together so more of us current residents can enjoy the success that I have.

My larger point, which maybe I wasn't clear enough about, is that you just can't run a city with only poor people in it. DC simply cannot survive with a massive base of poor people while shunning and mocking any attempt to actually develop the city.

You really can't run a city on the income from liquor stores and thrift stores, especially while providing massive social services. It just can't be done. You've got to have development, and a taxable class of people.

Which is why I find it really ironic when people denigrate the supposed yuppies and others moving into DC. Are a lot of them annoying? Sure. Are they snobs? Sure, some are. But they are paying considerably more in taxes than they are getting in city services, and that's exactly what the city needs.

I'll never forget the City Paper article detailing the DC Fire Dept runs on H Street NE. Fire Dept personnel have been picking up the same losers and transporting them every time they get drunk or high, for years. Many of these losers cost the city tens of thousands of dollars a year, in medical and transportation costs. Plus of course the cost in crime, and the very real cost of these losers' impact on the entire neighborhood - making it a place people fled for three decades.

And who will pay all these costs? The very people that are the subject of such ridicule - those middle class and upper middle class people in all the new condos on H Street. And, of course, the developers that took a massive risk and made such housing and neighborhood revitalization possible. Often against daunting odds, often while having to fight an obstinate or useless city government, often while being roundly criticized and flat-out lied about and demonized.

We may get 60,000 new residents in the DC area per year, but it's a safe bet that the considerable majority would never consider living in any of these areas in DC, even if we could prove for years that serious crime was no longer a problem.

Race plays a factor. But other factors are also at play. I love the city, but even I look forward to maybe getting away from it one day. Simply put, DC is a pain to live in. Parking is very difficult, and getting worse. The local government, while much improved, is still pathetic.

Even if we did away with serious crime you'd still have a whole lot of people that would prefer the burbs, even with the commute. Especially as more of the burbs encourage mini-cities around their metro stops. Sure, we can mock them and say they are fake urban areas. But, truth be told, they have their pluses. And very little crime. And no DC government to interface with.

To expand on Carlos' point, don't neglect the ability of real estate agents to stretch the range glossy-named areas to the point of ridiculousness. Have you seen the areas that are classified as Capitol Hill these days? A current example is Hillcrest, a solidly middle/upper-middle class neighborhood east of the river. If you believe realtors, this neighborhood expands from north of Fort Dupont Park all the way down to the crack dens bordering the Suitland Parkway.

Yes, the racial stigma might suppress the property value of a particular neighborhood for a little while, but once the front wave of gentrification has passed, whitey won't be so scared of living next to heterogeneous skin tones. Logan Circle, Capitol Hill, Columbia Heights, U Street, et. al. all support this thesis.

Hillman: They may not be the next G'Town, but they're very likely to be the next LeDroit, Eckington, or Del Ray. The demand will quickly outstrip supply. I'm thinking of the 60K+ new residents of our area each year, + all the losers who bought from Manassas to Ashburn, and Columbia to Damascus to Urbana, who now hate their commutes.

Your point about the ethics of allowing crime (and the fear of crime) to depress housing values is fundamentally right, though. In some ways, I’m sympathetic to the fact folks can choose to have affordable housing by also choosing to allow crime, but the social costs are way too high for the personal choice argument to carry the day.

Carlos, you raise a valid point. I should have been more careful in my statement.

But it's safe to say that many of these currently unsafe areas are more than likely not going to be the next Georgetown.

Even though, Anacostia could be quite nice and could be a regional draw, with the right infrastructure and safety.

> But Citizens Against Government Waste's Tom Finegan says taxpayers in Montana shouldn't be paying for commuters in the Washington area.

OK. Deal. But taxpayers in other states no longer pay for anything in Montana either, k? Might want to take a look a the paid-to-received table before agreeing, though. Just some friendly advice from an urbanite used to seeing his tax money go to rural states.

> "It should be paid by passenger fares, local governments, and by competitively awarded federal grants," Finegan says.

Perhaps Mr. Finegan is unaware of the fact that the federal government is the biggest employer and most important contributor of riders to Metro. Perhaps he is unaware that the entire country benefits from a functional government and that Metro is an important gear in the engine that keeps our government functioning.

...Or perhaps he’s just an ideologue who’s opinion shouldn’t be taken seriously.

Hillman: Don't say "never." I'm not quite sure Georgetown had that cachet a few decades ago, and certainly Logan was a crime-ridden, predominantly black area until not too long ago. I'm not exactly qualified to say whether gentrification will stop at the river, but I do know not-so-good areas can and do turn into favorable places.

"New development just puts money into the hands ass-wad home builders. Who cares if nobody's putting offers down on the $1million lofts on NYave..."

Not really. New development puts tax dollars in city coffers. Those tax dollars pay for large portions of the city that are a drain on the city.

Do you really think H Street NE would be seeing the drastic improvements there if it hadn't been for the yuppie palaces being built en masse on the western edge of H Street and the promise of new development that all these newcomers bring with them? Who do you think is going to shop in all the new H Street business, generating all this new tax money? Who is going to pay $5 for beers in the new bars, again generating tax money?

H Street is getting a Harris Teeter, which will produce massive tax revenue and jobs. Why is this store coming? To serve the people in those lofts and condos, who will pay taxes to the city for decades. Those lofts and condos were built by developers. Who paid taxes to the city.

The property tax issue is easy to solve. Lower them. DC government spending is going up in proportion to the rise in property taxes. They are addicted to spending - some of which is wise, some of which is wasteful.

Besides, with the Homestead deduction and the programs the city has for low-income households the hit shouldn't be that big (emphasis on shouldn't).

Ghettoburbs:

I think you may be underestimating the sheer amount of housing that is available in NE, SE, and east of the Anacostia.

Sure, if these areas magically became safe the prices in some instances would go up. But the sheer number of apartments and houses would dampen that considerably. There are literally miles of this stuff.

Another factor, whether we like to admit it or not..... these areas are predominately black. A good many people are never going to live there because the neighbors are black, no matter how safe the neighborhoods become. That will artificially make housing more affordable, probably for the foreseeable future.

Another factor - the priciest housing often comes with an address, like Logan, Cap Hill, Georgetown, etc. No matter how you dress up a lot of these now crime-ridden areas, they will never have the cachet that will command super high rents.

Complaints of low income residents. Yes, we should make every effort to provide housing assistance for those willing to work, or those that are truly mentally handicapped, very old, etc.

But a lot of the complaining I've heard in DC for the past ten years comes from perfectly healthy younger people complaining because their free housing is being taken away, even though they haven't worked a day in the past decade.

A lot of us are sick to death of subsidizing these losers, then watching as they and their kids terrorize the very neighbors that are paying their way.

Tackle the public safety issue and the affordable housing issue will solve itself to a large degree.

The DC metropolitan area's explosive job growth has created a large housing shortage. All things being equal, real estate gains in value as you approach downtown. The only thing keeping the NE, SE, EoA neighborhoods cheap are festering social ills (crime, shitty schools, etc.). Curing these ills won't allow the poor to live under better conditions, it will just replace them with middle-class "gentrifiers," who themselves are just looking for affordable housing. It's no wonder that low-income residents don't view development in a favorable light.

Protests against demolition of a crime-infested high rises seems patently absurd, until you consider that the old residents cannot afford the replacement housing. Certainly, the neighborhood and city as a whole benefit from the replacement of blighted property, but the displaced residents do not. That's not to say the city shouldn't continue with revitalization of blighted property, as these properties are the breeding grounds for present and future "crime emergencies." However, ignoring the complaints of low-income residents will only stall revitalization efforts, and at worst, lead to the election of officials whose main platform is "keeping Whitey from destroying the fabric of our community."

Journalists tend to focus too much new residential development when looking at how business is effecting a regional economy. Bars/Venues/Retails/Offices/etc are way more important for changing incomes in an area. For example, all the new development along H st. NE is putting money directly into people's hands by pushing up real estate prices on existing homes (which creates a cyclical effect once local home-owners have a lot of money to invest locally or otherwise) and providing jobs to the local community. You could probably argue that it is the front wave of gentrification too, but that's a whole different story.

New development just puts money into the hands ass-wad home builders. Who cares if nobody's putting offers down on the $1million lofts on NYave...

"Turns out 40 years of trying to exist on the taxes from hair weave salons and liquor stores doesn't really work out well."

---Zing!

Saying that DC has no affordable housing is laughable.

We have literally miles of it. It's just that it's in NE, SE, and East of the Anacostia.

Some of it is gorgeous, in charming areas. Granted, it doesn't come with granite countertops or trendy coffee shops, and doesn't come with a trendy address.

Of course the larger problem is that much (but not all) of it is unsafe.

It's a public safety issue, not a lack of affordable housing.

Tackle the public safety issue and the affordable housing issue will solve itself to a large degree.

Whether people like it or not, development projects are what keeps cities progressing and gives them a tax base.

Turns out 40 years of trying to exist on the taxes from hair weave salons and liquor stores doesn't really work out well.

Someone has to actually pay the taxes in DC so we can lavish untold tens of millions on yet more failed public schools, yet more astonishingly violent public housing complexes, and yet more commercial strips where you can buy crappy liquor singles in twenty locations but can't get a hamburger in a sit-down restaurant.

Do people not realize how a city works? It can't be 100% poor people. Simply put, poor people don't pay taxes. Quite often, they tax the city resources far more than they can ever hope to pay in taxes.

Sure, we need to do a better job providing affordable housing, in particular workforce housing (the key here is actually making the miles of affordable housing we do have in NE and East of the Anacostia safe......) But whining that all the new development is housing and amenities for the non-poor is shortsighted, classist, and stupid.

West Nile is now endemic. People should just assume all mosquitoes carry it. If it's not being detected in humans, I'd be willing to bet that is because it's not being tested for. After all, why bother? It's not like, once someone's contracted it, there's a cost/benefit favorable solution.

Funding for public transit for the nation's capital is not pork. It's infrastructure. That's the type of thing government is supposed to pay for.

Jillions of tourists use metro. They aren't here to see the sights of historic Anacostia. They are here to see Federal sights.

Jillions of federal employees use metro. Very few of those employees pay any local income tax to DC. Many don't pay local income tax to VA or MD either, as they cheat and claim home state residency even after living here for years.

Sure, of course locals use Metro. But last time I checked the federal government had a 100 year history of shelling out big bucks to build highways and automobile infrastructure literally from coast to coast.

Public transit is infrastructure. Not pork. To even discuss not funding it fully is ludicrous, especially given current events surrounding our crack-like addiction to oil and the hell that is causing.

Seems to me if the Feds can pony up the dough to help fund killer collapsing roof tiles in the Big Dig, they can help subsidize their own damned people riding Metro. And Metro tiles don't even crush people. Just gotta worry about drowning in the Red Line between Dupont and Cleveland Park.

I guess Finegan would be happier with an extra 30,000 cars on the Beltway every day. Much better use of Federal funds.

Ijjit.

Pork for Metro? It's about time.

Quite frankly, I'm done with escaltors and elevators that are frequently out of service, poor lighting and infrequent service on the Greenline after 630PM. There I said it.

Citizens Against Government Waste? They have every right to complain: but because the Nation's Capital is in a political grey area and can't really speak for itself, residents could actually use this sort funding.

Metro's biggest problem is that the needs of DC, MD and VA are completely different. Virginia wants to invest in more roads to relieve traffic, Maryland's waffling over whether or not to build a connection road across MoCo, and DC? Well...DC's a bit like that friend of yours who's like "Dag son, I'd do it. I'd be making serious moves and bringing us all up...Lemme tell you, boy... if only I had the cash."

Someone should give Mr. Finegan a crash course in Congress 101: pork is an inescapable mode of operating on the Hill. At least this project isn't tailored for the wealthiest 10%. Because pork comes no matter what, we should count our blessings that all in the area are getting some benefit. CAGW just saw this as an easy target because it is a large amount. I am sure there are exclusive/limited pork projects out there that simply have smaller disbursements.

And, hey, it could be worse-- it could be Amtrak!

What assholes. Their office is, you guessed it, in downtown. 1301 Connecticut Ave. How much you want to bet a few of their employees use Metro?

Let's break down this statement.

CAGW's Tom Finegan noted, "[Metro funding] should be paid by passenger fares, local governments, and by competitively awarded federal grants."

2. Local governments.

Local governments already pay a substantial portion of Metro funding, and the proposed federal amount would have to be matched by equal dedicated local funding. Also, as the seat of our country's government, the federal government constitutes a substatial portion of the local government. Where do you think those 100k's of people are going every day?

3. Competitively awarded federal grants.

This one has some merit, as the funding was attached as a rider to an unrelated bill. However, as pork, metro funding pales in comparison to some of the garbage that goes into the highway bill (hello Bridge to Nowhere?).

I think razing CFSA and starting over hits a lot closer to the root of the problem than hiring more cops, building more jails, and alarming our homes and autos. The situation of kids, especially adolescent males, in the care of CFSA is abysmal. I have met some excellent foster parents but on the whole...most group homes are downright criminally negligent and should be shut down immediately. Kids run away, drop out of school, and disappear from the system routinely, before the age of 14. Where's the next place we see them? Oak Hill. Or DC Jail.

I happen to think that Chief Ramsey is pretty good, with the exception of civil liberties.

I suggested year round schools a couple years ago, and I know for sure last year in themail, in part for this reason. (It was written in response to the regular War 7 summer problem of children stealing cars for joyriding and occasionally killing bystanders while driving.)

Anyway, my blog today has an item on the UK's "Respect Action Plan", which I think is a more comprehensive plan to deal with the roots of crime. Yesterday I wrote about the Williams police officer proposal. And I agreed in that entry with the person who wrote today about numbers vs. effectiveness.

I happen to think that Chief Ramsey is pretty good, with the exception of civil liberties. And I agree with the other poster who criticized the police union.

Oh come on, it's not being facetious is a bad thing:

facetious \fuh-SEE-shuhs\, adjective:

1. Given to jesting; playfully jocular.

2. Amusing; intended to be humorous; not serious.

I prefer the tag "cute" instead of "facetious," but yes-- I know he is black. In fact, I heard the man speak last August at school. Good public speaker, just seems that his problems arise when speaking "off the record"!

The school idea might be good. There is a summer jobs program for 14 and up. What to do with the ones too young for that? Our block is paying them to clean and tend the street, on an ad hoc basis. Some of the payment is even in food, so we know they're eating something beyond soda and chips...

Also on safety: Since so much of the subtext of our recent crime emergency has to do with youth crime, what's up with Family and Child Services and, under it, Child Protective Services? ( http://cfsa.dc.gov/cfsa/site/default.asp )

I hear it may go into receivership?

CFSA bears much of the government's portion of the responsibility for ensuring that troubled families, and especially troubled youths, don't end up impacting the broader neighborhoods and eventually become MPD problems. This is obviously what is happening and it needs to be looked at immediately.

Wait-- Steele is black?

Please tell me you're be facetious CN.

Instead of adding more police, why not just get working air conditioners installed in the schools (along with all the other repairs...) and start running school year-round? It would probably do a lot of good for our staggering illiteracy rate while also doing a number on the annual summer crime wave.

Either that or just bring back the old Marion Barry summer job programs. It would cost a lot less to just give teenagers summer jobs that keep them off the streets than it would to hire another 1300 full-time police officers to keep bored kids out of trouble.

Wait-- Steele is black?

Hmm, so the police levels have dropped from 5,100 in the '70s to 3,800 today and meanwhile DC's violent crime rate is headed towards its mid-1960s low - I don't see the correlation. William's call to review police deployment sounds right, but I doubt fueling DC's police addiction would solve the crime emergency.

Police protection comes down to raw numbers and effective use: Raw numbers- Do we have enough to do the job? Effective Use- Are the officers being deployed/employed to greatest benefit?

I hate to say it, but I don't agree that the police union is always are friend anymore than police brass is. If we are unable in the short term to change effective use, than we need to up the raw numbers. I think this is the tacit understanding of both Williams and Fenty. Fenty, anyway, has strongly hinted that Ramsey will go. The police union is a more difficult beast to tame. For example, what's with all the disability leave and regular rotation of effective officers to other beats?

Be careful K, you don't want to upset CN by mentioning race again!

Steele's problem isn't alienating the hardcore social conservatives of the GOP, he's a big a social conservative as there is; the anti-gay marriage crowd loves him. Steele is trying to appeal to moderate Republicans who are poised to either vote Democrat or stay home on election day.

As far as the GOP not wanting a "maverick black politician" around, I couldn't disagree more. The GOP has realized that the GOP positions on school choice, gay marriage, and faith-based initiatives are very much in line with many of the values that people in the black community hold dear. They are no longer content to concede the black vote to the Democratic party, but part of bringing blacks into the fold is successfully (ahem, Alan Keyes) running black candidates for office and allowing those same cadidates to speak freely while campaigning.

"Councilmember Adrian Fenty (D-Ward 4), the only dissenting voice in last week's vote on the emergency crime legislation, applauded the idea"

And this is who the city is about to elect as Mayor? That is a darn shame.

How many more flip-flops are going to elect here? I am not a Linda Cropp fan, but I would take her in a heartbeart over big-mouth Fenty.

Fenty offers no solutions for the city or his ward. All he knows how to do is criticize others.

"Steele also called Bush his "homeboy,"

Michael Steele is obviously not that bright. While the Bush administration has made some moves that have caused Republicans to recoil in disgust, Mr. Steele has to remember that these same folk are the ones who may vote on him. If he wishes to break ranks with the Prez, he should not do so in a manner that tips the apple cart. As a black man, you figure he would know better. The last thing that the Republican party wants is a maverick black politician who may cost them the uber-conservative white votes.

Either way, when the revolution comes, you best believe Mr. Steele is gonna be among the first to go.

I don't think it's going to be an issue. The Post story on this yesterday indicated that the White House\RNC is going to back Steele with money and resources no matter what he says, because they can't afford to concede that (or any other) Senate race.

At this point it's a low risk proposition for GOP candidates to distance themselves from the current administration. I expect to see more GOP candidates stepping out and taking a few jabs at W & friends this election cycle. The GOP is desperate to keep control of Congress and prevent the kind of witch hunt they went on when Clinton was in office. So the GOP can't afford to "punish" anyone, who doesn't give the party line, by withholding support from them.

5,000 officers!! My god. That's absolutely insane. And if I were a criminal it would definitely add to my perception that we are in some sort of war zone and that I need to up the ante a little bit.

Actually, I'm not a criminal and that's what I think.

I know, I know that the East Coast loves its officers. But I lived in Oakland, CA (a city with 10,000 probationers and parolees) and it was like pulling teeth to add 100 more officers. And that included money for increased bike and foot patrols and other crime prevention methods. It took TWO times to pass a voter referendum.

DC has an addiction. And this time it's officer count. I'm with Patterson on this. How about spending that money to get the officers we do have outside of their patrol cars.

i'm all for borf decorating things on the way out to dulles. that wonderful bright shining star of an artiste should let his fellow virginians enjoy his art and musings as us washingtonians have been blessed enough to do already.

Furthermore, the interview was not off the record. I'm thinking that lying about it isn't going to make things any better for Steele.

"Anonymous" and "off the record" aren't the same thing. The reporters knew who he was.

I like the rubber sidewalks; they're easier on the knees.

Nate,

You are probably right. I hope that people understand that I am a D.C. insider, but right now I am on the outside looking back in. And, from what I can see, Washington, D.C. is not even on the radar as a place people travel to for pleasure because it is fun, cool, or entertaining. A lot of people discover D.C. as an afterthought while they were here on their business trip. New York City is "cool", Miami is "cool" too, and so is San Francisco. People go there for pleasure.

Even with almost 80 museums, even with world-class restaurants, even with the second highest amount of theatre seats in the country, Washington, D.C. is such an unloved city around the world.

As the nation's capital of the United States of America, D.C. should and can do better. D.C. needs some real visionaries at the top who can set the city up for the future instead of just thinking 2 or 3 years down the road.

The current D.C. City Council does not cut it. And, now we are going to elect one of them to represent us to the nation and world? LOL Now, that is a laugh. Well, not really......

You all may not have seen the architectural renderings of the 2 buildings that Herb Miller wants to build on the stadium site, but they don't look like typical D.C. buildings at all. From the roof right on down to the street level, these 2 buildings have a style which will be very new to this city. And you know what, that is exactly what this city needs. We need to break out of the mold of the same ole', same ole'. It does not cut it folks.

By the way, the Lerners, being the conservative bunch, have already shot the buildings down architecturally. I bet you people will be stepping all over each other to get a residence in those buildings once they are built!

D.C. has a lot going for it. This city needs to address the problems and issues that face the people, but D.C. needs to step out of the box and secure a few architectural gems that will bring people here. People want to see stuff like that. I was just in Barcelona 2 weeks ago, and you would not believe how many people go there to look at "cool" buildings and architecture.

You know that shiny, brightly lit Gallery Place complex down on 7th Street? Well, so many boring critics who want the same ole' same ole' shot it down architecturally. But, Gallery Place is exactly the kind of building and place that people want to look at. Oh yeah, Herb Miller was part of that project, too.

People may also not realize the impact that Mayor Williams has made on this city on the international scene. As some of you may complain that he travels too much, Mayor Williams has almost got this city on the radar as a place that has something other than politics. He has done a lot for D.C. awareness around the globe, but a lot of people are too shortsighted to even realize what is happening.

We need visionaries in this city on the command deck.

Those statistics include people travelling for business as well as pleasure. I'll bet that if you factored out all the business, government, diplomatic, multilateral agency and NGO "arrivals" for all of these cities, DC would drop down below Chicago and Boston.

Great find! D.C. can do much better as the nation's capital. New York City has a wide lead in international arrivals to the tune of 3.1 million more arrivals.

Have a great week everyone and thanks for the stimulating conversation. I appreciate it!

Looks like DC was 8th among US cities in number of tourists from overseas in 2003.

Well......a lot of tourists visit from the rest of the United States of America.

To a lot of people in Europe and other places, D.C. is an afterthought. May I mention to you New York City again......... Or how about Miami......... Or how about San Francisco............

Washington, D.C. needs more coolness factor.

Of course, there are international tourists that come to D.C., but other U.S. cities have a far, far higher number of international tourists in relation to total visits.

By the way, I was born (Washington Hospital Center) and raised in D.C.

I am returning to D.C. next year, and I can't wait. Just because an ocean separates me from my hometown, it doesn't mean that I don't keep abreast of the latest happenings......

Trust me......I know. I don't live in DC. I live in Europe, and D.C. never gets mentioned as a place that people want to visit.


Would you be so kind as to explain to me where all these tourists come from then?

Hill Rat,

Thanks for commenting. I believe the Baseball Stadium will primarily serve as an economic accelerator for the Near SE area of DC. I believe the stadium development will accelerate and enhance investment so that maximum tax revenues will be achieved sooner than later. Also, the baseball stadium will diversify the uses in that area, instead of mainly an office park. The cool factor has some value also. Residents, especially future residents, want to be near "cool" things and entertainment - not an office park. An office park was the curve that the Near SE area was on until the stadium was introduced into the mix.

As far as comparing, another poster challenged my comments on the benefit of the convention center. I wanted to stay on topic since the thread is supposed to be about the stadium and parking, so the convention center and baseball stadium appeared to be tied together in my response. These two projects are very different.

As far as how long the Nats stay in DC, I do believe there is a guarantee that the Nats will be in DC for the entire 30-year lease agreement. This is why the lease agreement is so, so important to the city and baseball. I believe this is why it took so long to be signed also.

Even with all the built-in entertainment options that D.C. has, unfortunately, most people outside of the city and D.C. area think of it as largely boring, uninteresting, and totally political. Trust me......I know. I don't live in DC. I live in Europe, and D.C. never gets mentioned as a place that people want to visit. I always hear New York City out of people's mouths. The Baseball Stadium and other developments like Gallery Place will chip away at what the real D.C. really is to outsiders. Plus, most new residents to D.C. come from outside of the area anyway. These developments and amenities will make people think twice when they move the D.C. area for jobs, etc. It will be more likely in the future that they might pick D.C. proper instead of other areas.

It is all these tangible, intangible, direct, and indirect values that will make this stadium project successful. Yes, the direct costs are high, but to tell you the truth, D.C. has some wiggle room right now. D.C. has money in the bank....D.C. has an excellent bond rating...and D.C. has the momentum going for it right now.

Yes, I know we have other concerns in our city like crime, education, etc. But you know what, some of those issues could have been addressed or looked at with significance long ago. It is the elected officials, especially in the D.C. Council, who are to blame for this. The legislative branch makes the law in this city. But then again, new schools and new books don't mean that a student will be ready to learn either. The issue runs much deeper than that.

I believe the long-term value of what the Near SE area will become outweighs the $600 million cost/risk to the city. At a minimum, the stadium will thrust Near SE to a much more fun and diverse part of the city. We really don't need strictly office parks here, you know! The cost of this project, amortized over 30 years really is a drop in the bucket compared to the larger economic engine at hand.

Plus, if you haven't noticed, the business community is a big supporter of this project as a whole. They have been largely quiet after their initial concerns were addressed. They are the ones financing this stadium anyway...........

Allow me to expand on the indirect benefits of the convention center vs. stadium. Said benefits are derived from the "entertainment dollars" of its patrons. It has been demonstrated that entertainment dollars are a relatively fixed figure for a given household, so by spending $10 on a movie ticket you'd be less inclined to spend $10 at a bar. Since a sports stadium draws the majority of its patrons from the local populace, its economic benefits are gained by diverting funds from another entertainment venue. For a given metropolitan area*, the stadium building is a zero-sum game because it doesn't actually introduce entertainment dollars into the economy.

Contrast the stadium to the convention center, which draws its patrons mostly from outside of the region. This leads to real added entertainment dollars, since without a visit to DC these people would have spent their money in New York, Boston, Philadelphia, etc. Therefore, the intdirect benefits lead to an actual growth of tax revenue instead of a redistribution.

*For the new Nats stadium, however, this point is debatable because of jurisdictional boundaries (i.e. DC doesn't share a budget with Arlington). The District could end up with a bigger slice of the entertainment pie, but as DC already has a disproportionately large piece, the stadium's additional contribution should be negligible. Again, this point is debatable.

Otavio_dc,

IMHO you're comparing apples and oranges. The Convention center had 191 events, the baseball stadium may be used less than 100 days/year. CC visitors stay in hotels, rent cars, etc., whereas for the most part stadium visitors will buy a view hot dogs and beers. Important differences that can't be ignored.

Arguing to spend $600 million (which ends up being considerably more when you add the debt service) on the stadium assumes there is no other way to spend that much money that will generate a similar rate of return. I'm not sure that's the case. Why not spend that money on a massive public works project to replace the water and sewer system in DC or start funding community based development of distressed properties or use it to subsidize the establishment of a Hydrogen fuel delivery infrastructure?

Then there's the possibility that baseball could ultimately be a crushing failure in DC and the Nats could decamp for greener pastures in 10-15 years. Where would be then?

With all that said, your point about long-term thinking is a good one and worthy of serious consideration. I'm reflexively against the spending of public money on behalf of professional sports teams when there's not a shared risk partnership as in the case of the MCI Center; so I've never really considered that POV. You've given me something to chew on.

Peace,

Hill Rat

As a man of finance and economics, the mayor understands, and he is among the best of them. He turned this city around from bankruptcy and crisis. Mayor Williams knows how to make money for this city, and he will be missed for his knowledge and insight. He is not in the wrong for the economic development projects that he promotes, the baseball stadium included.

Ok, I am back now!

I know that the convention center talk is a little off-topic for this specific thread, but some posters on dcist deserve a little extra attention and care. I am happy to provide it with facts and intelligent knowledge so that they know where they stand and I stand for future conversations.

Let us run through some numbers:

* Total cost of Washington Convention Center - Approximately $850 million.

* In 2005, 191 events were hosted at the convention center. 1.15 million attendees were at these 191 events. These 1.15 million attendees spent $424 million throughout the city.

* The positive economic impact of moving from the old to the new convention center has already been realized in its third year of operation.

* Total assets for the Washington Convention Center Authority are more than its liabilities. Total assets = $834 million. Total liabilities = $540 million. Basic finance ladies and gentlemen!

* 12,000 direct and INDIRECT new jobs were created as a result of the new convention center.

The reason why cities building convention centers is for their direct and INDIRECT economic benefits. When attendies come to D.C., they spend money. Over $400 million dollars in INDIRECT spending happened in 2005 as a result of the city building the new convention center. This means more sales tax revenue for the city. This means more hotel tax revenue for the city. This means better business for hotels. This means better business for restaurants. This means better busines for stores. Better business for hotels, restaurants, and stores means more money the city gets in tax revenue.

Over the life of this new convention center, the direct and INDIRECT economic activity generated in the city is MORE THAN the cost to build the convention center by the city.

Yes, convention centers may operate at a (slight) budgetary loss year over year, but the INDIRECT economic benefit of increased sales tax, hotel tax, etc. greatly exceeds these small costs.

I hope you all can understand this! This is basic economics people.

Now, back on topic. This is the same idea for the Baseball stadium and environs. Yes, the baseball stadium costs the city something INITIALLY. But the mayor is ensuring a viable and economically profitable baseball district to ensure that the city realizes the maximum INDIRECT economic benefits that the stadium will bring. Have a development with 660 condos, 50,000 square feet of retail, and a hotel on the stadium site itself will help the city ensure that it realizes the increased hotel tax revenue, sales tax revenue, real estate tax revenue, and income tax revenue (from the new residents in the condos). The same will happen when the rest of the area gets built out around the stadium. These INDIRECT economic benefits over the 30-year baseball lease should outweigh the initial costs of using public money to build in the first place.

The problem is that most politicians and the public in general can only think to the next election, which is most times 2 or 3 years down the road. You have to spend money to make money in our capitalistic society. Over 30 years, the City should gain back the initial costs through direct and INDIRECT revenue. Most people do not think long term. This philosophy has eluded mankind for centuries now.

For (audited) annual reports on the Washington Convention Center Authority and the Washington Convention Center itself, direct your attention to:

www dot dcconvention dot com

The problem with large events isn't the capacity of trains, it's the bottleneck that occurs at the escalators and fare gates. I believe there are plans to add quite a few new escalators and elevators at the Navy Yard station.

Metro is already stressed during games of only moderate attendence at RFK.

Is this really true? Certainly after a baseball game or soccer match there are more people on the platform at once than at any other time (excluding July 4th, special events) but I'm not sure the wait time is that much more (than weekends or late nights, for example) or that the crowding on the train is that much more (than rush hour, for example). Metro usually provides enough trains frequently enough to move people out of the Stadium Armory station fairly quickly.

I agree that we don't want metro to be the main burden, but at the same time we want to find a way for parking that's functionally and aesthetically appeasing the goal of having a walkable neighborhood. Ultimately, the way that this parking plan is implemented should meet this goal. I think the number of spaces along with the fact that it's inside of the two towers is a good compromise. Parking at Fenway sucks for example. I really think a lot of the area's future will depend on design, which I hope we see a lot of variety, I don't want to see huge blocks of the same architecture and color and concrete everywhere. Anyway, money wise, I think some overruns will have to be accomodated, but this latest one with Miller I don't think at this point is anything to worry about, we need to get this project started so it's completed on time.

I love the photo.

Metro is already stressed during games of only moderate attendence at RFK. I think it would be too much to place the whole burden on Metro. Furthermore, the number of parking spaces that's being discussed is very low compared to the total number of seats in the stadium (iirc it's ~1,300 vs. 40,000). There supposedly will be additional parking near the site that is not part of the development that the DC gov't is involved in.

"Do you have numbers to back up these claims? I haven't personally seen any assessments on the economic results of the convention, but I haven't been looking either."

I welcome a good challenge. I have some other work to do right now because I actually have a life which I like to keep exciting and rewarding. But, when I return later today, expect a thorough report from me on this topic which you better believe will be detailed and current. I study D.C. economics and revitalization issues for fun, and it will be my pleasure to share some of what I know with you, GhettoBurbs (whatever that means) :-)

$600 million + $100 million = $700 million

Let's go stadium! Only $300m more until $1 billion. What's the Vegas O/U for the final cost? $900 million? $1.2 billion? $2 billion? At the rate these of these cost overruns, we could be looking at a brand new stadium for the cost of a new Wilson bridge.

Even with the cost overruns for the new convention center, D.C. still has gained more than it spent in increased revenue and economic activity.

To be fair, the Washington Post broke the sidewalks story a few weeks ago:

http://tinyurl.com/gdj5x

How the heck did we agree to build parking for a baseball stadium that is so close to a Metro station? There's no parking at AT&T Park (built in 2000, admittedly financed privately) or at Wrigley Field (admittedly, far older).

What a stupid waste. And certainly won't promote a transit first planning policy for the district. Which again makes me think that this area is going to have all the character of Dulles Town Centre.

Is Bill Frist going to intervene on that kid's behalf and will Bush interrupt his vacation to sign special legislation forcing medical care against this kid's will?

D.C. CFO Gandhi's newest scare tactic is based on Herb Miller not even paying for his own project. Of course, we should realize that this not why the Mayor chose Herb Miller to lead the mixed-use project at the stadium site. I think it is safe to say that Herb Miller should be able to secure financing for his own project. He already has preliminary funding lined-up anyway. The hysteria never ends.....just like when the new D.C. Convention Center was (narrowly) approved. Even with the cost overruns for the new convention center, D.C. still has gained more than it spent in increased revenue and economic activity.

I guess that $2.4 Trill will help pay off that $8.5trill we owe.

Has anyone seen any information about the cyclist killed on 12th between Eye and K this morning by a dump truck? There were a couple of closed streets and lots of yellow tape/cops when I arrived at work. Scary.

NABBF - At least you admit to being smarmy, so maybe you can understand why I think your comment warranted a couple of matches.

Geraldo is a joke. Is he going to wear body armor in DC like he did in the f'ing Green Zone? He is retarded.

I agree that the best measure of success will be how far things deviate from the original plan. I don't know if the stadium will open late, be way overbudget, look like crap, or some combination of the three; but this early parking fiasco leaves me with little confidence that things will go off as planned.

There are important differences between the downtown location of the MCI Center and where they're putting the baseball stadium. It's difficult to remember now, but for many years after MCI opened, downtown was still mostly a ghost town at night. That area didn't really start to blow up until residential buildings started opening up down there in the last 3-4 years.

My point about liking baseball is that I actually *want* baseball in DC, just not at any price. And OK, I'll cop to it, I really wanted them to rebuild at RFK for obvious reasons.

Oh great leaping cheezballs. so now Geraldo will descend from the skies over our terrified little city like some low-rent Anderson Cooper messiah? If we could just touch the hem of his garments, we will be cured of all our pain...

I imagine Geraldo's Crime coverage will be a little like Mr. Show's FF Woodycooks sketch.

Shake the crime stick at 'em.

Re-Neducation saved my life.

Rat,

If you look closely, my smarmy remark was merely pointing out that soon after people say "the taxpayers are paying for the stadium" they usually say "the money could be used for the schools." I wasn't staking out a position.

Jeez

Not what I said in the least. I said that since the city is running a surplus, I'm inclined to give them a little more leeway when it comes to deciding how to spend money on development. No stadium deal = no baseball. The city decided that the stadium deal was worth the investment so they did it. In completely opposing baseball financing in any form, Fenty made a completely no risk, highly political move that I dont think made any sense. To make a wildly inapt comparison: In 1940, Jeannette Rankin was the only member of Congress to vote against WWII. Principled stand? Sure, she'd voted against WWI on pacifist grounds as well. Make much sense (or any difference)? None whatsoever.

It's not a no-brainer, and it's not always easy to recoup expenses- I think I made that perfectly clear. In fact, it takes a pretty specific set of circumstances for stadium building to be worthwile, and after looking at the experience of other cities, I think DC is a prime candidate for it working. If Dallas had been sucessful in luring the Cowboys to redevelop Fair Park, I think that would have been sucessful too. In fact, you bring up one of the prime examples of a stadium being sucessful in spurring development, and it's one that's happened right here in DC. Relatively high population density, affluence, public transportation, and underutilized land (compared to surrounding valuation) create a pretty prime candidate.

Mark's largely right in saying that the only real way to measure the sucess is how far it deviates from the announced deal. Anything short of a spectacular sucess or a spectacular failure, and people on each side will simply insist they're right.

I'm glad you like baseball. Hooray. I don't particularly beyond eating peanuts and drinking beer, and I dont think either of those things matter in the least.

BrodyV,

So because the city is running a surplus we should float bonds on behalf of MLB? I'm not sure I follow your logic. If being in the stadium building business is such a no-brainer and its so easy to recoup your expenditures, then why did MLB stop helping teams finance stadiums?

For the record, I'm a huge baseball fan; my Father's Day gift was tickets to go see the Nats take on the Yankees. I don't even have a problem with some civic support of new stadiums, I think the city was right to give Abe tax breaks and the land to build the MCI Center. The Nats stadium deal, however, is ridiculously bad IMHO.

NABBF,

We spend in excess of $10K/student in DC, way more than we need to get the job done; the problem is that the money doesn't make it to the classroom. Fixing the schools doesn't require any more money, the only thing we need to do is cut the bureacratic bloat in DCPS.

Take your smarmy remark and blow it out your arse.

How could Fenty have moderated the ultimate outcome of the crime bill? It was presented pretty much as a fait accompli, no other councils members seemed receptive to compromise deals.

You can make the argument that he's out of touch with other council members - witness his apparent unawareness during the "open meeting" meetings - and that may be its own drawback.