Posts by Brianne Nadeau

The crowd was as diverse as the community, with life-long residents and newcomers alike speaking in opposition to the moratorium. Fewer than 10 people spoke in support of the moratorium. Comments were impassioned, but civil.

According to the meeting announcement from the ANCs,

The moratorium, as proposed, would seek to prohibit all future liquor licenses with the exception of full service grocery stores, it seeks to cap CT and CN licenses as well, and has been requested to be a 5-year moratorium. The boundaries of the moratorium as proposed and filed with ABRA, extend 1800 feet in either direction from Ben's Chili Bowl. This goes north to Clifton Street, south to R Street, east to just before Georgia Avenue. between 7th and 8th streets, and west to just west of 16th Street. overlapping New Hampshire Avenue. NW.

The community discussed a liquor license moratorium for the neighborhood in 2009, when a committee of residents studied the "ARTS" zoning overlay for 14th and U streets and made recommendations to modify it. There were 8 public meetings, and the 27 area ANC commissioners advised increasing the number of liquor licenses in the area.

Moratorium brings harm in Adams Morgan

Business leaders in Adams Morgan are now preparing for an upcoming March 2014 review of the moratorium in their community. A major nightlife destination, Adams Morgan is often invoked as a sort of boogeyman for policy impacting commercial districts, a warning of what might happen on U Street if something is not done to curb issues of noise, trash and crime.

But along 18th Street, the heart of Adams Morgan, a moratorium means that the kinds of businesses that might actually mitigate some of these issues—like higher end restaurants—aren't able to move into vacant spaces unless they wish to purchase an existing liquor license, something that can cost up to $75,000 in the market the moratorium has created. In 2010, the Alcoholic Beverage Control board unanimously lifted a similar moratorium in Georgetown.

There are better solutions than a moratorium

Those of us who have served the U Street community understand that there are serious issues that need to be addressed as our commercial district continues to thrive. But a liquor license moratorium serves as a blunt instrument in a situation where more precision is needed.

There will certainly be cases when a proposed liquor establishment is not the right fit for the space it wishes to occupy. The community will often support an establishment but with certain caveats that can go in a legally-binding "settlement agreement," which serves as a rider to the liquor license. We already have tools to address these issues. But we also need to pursue long-term solutions to the other impacts when residents and businesses are situated so closely.

We should seek funding for hospitality initiatives that train and support business owners. We should support opportunities to create more daytime foot traffic that would support retailers such as offices or hotels. And we should come together around green initiatives that would reduce trash, noise and pollution.

A liquor license moratorium is not the solution to all of our problems. The community has spoken on this issue in the past as it did last night, and it's time to put it to rest so we can focus our attention on real solutions.

Real collaboration is what helped U Street begin to thrive more than 10 years ago and it is what will help us continue to grow in a way that fosters business growth while also making our neighborhood a great place to live.

DC struggles with the causes and costs of stormwater runoff

Every time we get a torrential downpour in DC, the first thing I think about (other than why haven't I bought good rain boots yet?) is the incredible amount of pollution that will be flowing into our rivers and stream. This happens because of the amount of impervious surfaces in the District.

Impervious surfaces, or surfaces such as concrete, brick, and asphalt that are non-porous and do not allow rain to seep through them into the ground, make up 42% of the District's land area. This is typical in urban settings, but it means that rather than rainwater being absorbed by a grassy yard, field, or forest floor, it flows downhill, washing all of the filth accumulated on the ground into storm drains.

To make matters worse, about one-third of DC is served by a sewer system that combines both stormwater and sewage. This system also serves customers in parts of Maryland and Virginia. The sheer volume of stormwater runoff from this large, urbanized are is much greater than our system can handle.

As a result, when heavy storms happen the system must release overflow into our waterways before it has been treated, polluting Rock Creek, the Anacostia, and Potomac Rivers and ultimately the Chesapeake Bay.

There is a plan in progress to add 3 sets of massive storage tunnels to our system. The first set, to serve the Anacostia River, is now under construction. The second two will serve the Potomac River and the Rock Creek system.

This program, called the Clean Rivers project, will cost DC Water $2.6 billion and is funded in part by the fastest growing component of your water bill: the Clean Rivers Impervious Area Charge (IAC). The IACs go up each year, most recently by 92%. Another 47$ increase is proposed for October 1.

District residents foot disproportionate share of the bill

The current fee structure put in place to address this issue disproportionately puts 93% of the burden on DC customers, with the customers in Maryland and Virginia paying only 7%.

Some might argue that these suburban jurisdictions should not have to pay into the Clean Rivers project to assist DC with the management of its own stormwater. However, there have been, and continue to be, major savings for these jurisdictions by virtue of being a part of our system, and it's completely appropriate to re-examine this arrangement under our current circumstances.

Furthermore, IACs apply only inside squares and lots, and not to impervious areas in DC's transportation rights of way. Yet the fact is that 47% of the impervious surfaces in DC are roads, streets, sidewalks, and alleys. While DC residents benefit heavily from them, suburban residents, businesses, commuters, and visitors get big benefits from them as well.

Additionally, there is currently no difference in the fee structure for residential customers and commercial customers. Commercial properties, such as office buildings, benefit disproportionately from the roads and sidewalks that employees, customers, and suppliers use to get there, and they additionally have the opportunity to disperse costs to their customers. It makes sense to have a slightly higher fee structure for them than, say, a single-family home.

Although DC Water has established a Customer Assistance Program (CAP) for low-income residential customers, that CAP does not apply to the IAC portion of the bill. Before the IACs started to increase so dramatically, bills under the CAP averaged about one-half of other residential bills.

Many of our residents in DC live on fixed incomes and would be deeply impacted by this type of increase in their water bills. In a recent letter, I urged DC Water to set a 50% discount for the IAC component of bills to CAP customers.

Reduce runoff instead of storing it

DC Water has been required by the EPA to build this new system of storage tunnels to manage stormwater runoff, and as it stands, DC customers will pay the bulk of the cost it takes to implement this new system. The desperately needed storage tunnel for the Anacostia runoff is being built and needs to be paid for.

Before construction begins on the remaining two storage tunnels, however, DC Water is hoping to persuade the EPA to re-examine the current requirements and instead allow for a plan involving the aggressive implementation of green infrastructure to reduce runoff altogether instead of storing it.

This would involve green roofs, permeable pavement and roads, and new trees and gardens. It would have the added benefit of creating jobs, improving air quality, adding green space to our communities, and creating subsidies for property owners to take individual action. That sounds a lot better to me than a couple of underground tunnels.

We can encourage the EPA to support DC Water's proposal by writing to EPA Regional Administrator Shawn Garvin. We also don't have to wait to make green improvements to our properties. The District Department of the Environment offers incentives to homeowners for green property enhancements through its Riversmart Program.

Runoff reduction strategies can be implemented incrementally, improve our streets and neighborhoods, and may even be more cost effective than stormwater storage infrastructure. Check it out. I'm looking into rain barrels for my home this week. Maybe after that I'll finally get those rain boots.