April 17, 2008
Half of Del. Norton's Contributions From Real Estate Developers
The Politico has a story this morning on D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton's ties to real estate developers. A long list of powerful developers have recently made contributions to her re-election campaign, many of whom have projects underway that have benefited from Norton's political support.
The list of Norton’s donors reads like a “Who’s Who” of well-connected real estate developers: the Ratner family, which controls Forest City; Victor MacFarlane, a San Francisco developer who owns D.C. United and has sought to build a new soccer stadium on federal land across the Anacostia River from the Washington Nationals’ new ballpark; John E. “Chip” Akridge, who wants to build a different, 2.7-million-square-foot project near the baseball stadium; Ted and Mark Lerner, owners of the Washington Nationals and major developers in their own right; Christopher Smith, chairman and CEO of William C. Smith Co., a large commercial and residential management company in the District; Benjamin R. Jacobs, managing member of The JBG Companies, a player in the D.C. real estate market for decades; and William Chang, CEO of Westlake Development, co-owner of the San Francisco Giants and a business partner of MacFarlane.Norton is currently chairwoman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure’s Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management. Notably, she's also played a big role in luring many of these same developers to the areas around the Navy Yard. The story notes that 46 percent of the over $200,000 Norton raised as of March 31 came from real estate interests, an amount far beyond what Norton received from the industry previously. In the minds of big time developers, the business of the District's nonvoting representative this election cycle appears to be real estate.
|
Advertisement: DCist Continues Below!
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
ms. holmes-norton seems like a nice enough politician. she brings home some bacon for the district (college anywhere in the country at in-state rates, get your taxes done for free) but she sure isn't trancendent.
she hasn't been able to accomplish her biggest goal—full representation for us—in the many years she's been in the house. not that this is particularly easy to get done (or even within her ability).
all said, it's not surprising that she might be "beholden" to certain interests, just like any other member of the house.
A list of contributors to the Mayor's campaign and the members of the Coucil would also read like a "who's who" of real estate developers. So what? Correlation doesn't equal causation. I'm not a real fan of Norton, but file this under "duh."
I don't think this so surprising. After all, what other business interest really exists in this town? Manufacturing is limited at best. There are of course the lobbyists themselves ... lobbying for lobbyists?
I can't stand Norton's arrogance and general unpleasant personality (not to mention her few and far between accomplishments).
But I sorta have to share the same wavelength with perpetually aggrieved Dorothy Brizil - Norton is a fed delegate, so why are local developers all buttering her up? She has no say in zoning or bond issuances or local ANCs. So why butter her up? I can understand the Lerners wanting to make nice with her, but why the other developers? Are there potential federal tax goodies? Potential federal transportation funding? Potential federal agency tenants? That's about all I can think of.
And as snooty as I find Norton to be, her interviews with Colbert have been highly entertaining.
Yep, business as usual. But Holmes-Norton is one of the less egregious Representatives when it comes to collecting those contributions, and as the first poster noted she is pretty good about getting money for worthwhile DC projects. Good info on a subject that deserves scrutiny, but not quite the scandal that Politico is reporting when you look at the entire spectrum of scandal and corruption. Also, full representation for DC will never get done, but I actually appreciate her tilting at that particular that windmill.
The Politico was maybe expecting the District's large and influential bauxite-mining industry to cut her some checks? Property development and legal services are what we do around here.
Okay, I suppose there's a germ of a story in the fact that the proportion of Norton's fundraising that comes from property developers is increasing, but that story is probably that "the District remains a rare bright spot in a troubled real estate industry" chestnut that the Post trots out every few weeks.
If there's one thing I learned from my years at the University of Maryland, it's that the nation that controls bauxite controls the universe. I distinctly recall my econ professor screaming this as he was led away by the police. That, and Wilhelm Reich died for your sins.
Ummmmm I have no problem with Norton cutting deals with real estate developers..if it helps bring jobs, revenues, and refurbish parts of the city then so be it
Man the joke is on them. She doesn't even get to vote.
You might as well throw your money at the pages or the guy at the cafe cranking out the freedom fries.
Monkey, you had a class with Professor "Single-Theory-To-Explain-Everything Maniac" too?
I don't want to have sex with her, that's for sure.
You GO, Ellie Girl!
So Cranky, do you think that companies located in places other than the District have no possible interest in making contributions to their local federal legislators?
The idea that companies devote (or should devote) their lobbying/outreach to exclusively local political authorities, as if zoning laws and property tax were all they cared about, is so outright ridiculous that I'm having difficulty believing you actually suggested it.
I think the idea is that Norton can possibly swing getting Fed agencies to either relocate to DC or at least remain in DC. But, really, Norton would be doing this anyway without the contributions. But maybe they are hoping to sway her on particular locations?
I'm mostly postive about Norton. Seems nice enough. Quite the little firebrand when she wants to be. And I think it's unrealistic for us to think she's getting us voting rights anytime soon.