Mark Jordan - Greater Greater Washington

Shocking rhetoric from John Townsend and AAA

Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:02:00 EDT

by Dan Malouff, Ken Archer, David Edmondson, Ben Ross, Aimee Custis, Dan Reed, Geoff Hatchard, Rahul Mereand-Sinha, Jaime Fearer, Topher Mathews, Matt Johnson, Michael Perkins, Martin Moulton, Steven Glazerman, Tracey Johnstone, Tim Krepp, Steven Yates, Sandra Moscoso, Nick Casey, Joe Weedon, Canaan Merchant, Bradley Heard, Jereme Altendorf, Jacques Arsenault, Brent Bolin, Abigail Zenner, John Muller, Brian McEntee, Ben Harris, Sarah Lewis, Sally Hobaugh, Ryan Sigworth, Darren Buck, Mark Jordan, Miles Grant, Jessica Christy, Laura Dallas McSorley, Nolan Treadway, and Stewart Schwartz

This week's Washington City Paper cover story quoted AAA Mid-Atlantic spokesman John Townsend calling Greater Greater Washington editor David Alpert "retarded" and a "ninny," and comparing Greater Greater Washington to the Ku Klux Klan.

Many other reporters, people on Twitter, and residents generally have clearly stated in response what should of course go without saying, that such personal attacks are beyond the pale.

Some may get the sense that there is personal animosity between Townsend and the team here at Greater Greater Washington. At least on our end, nothing could be further from the truth. We simply disagree with many of his policy positions and his incendiary rhetoric.

Spirited argument is important in public policy, but it should not cross into insults. When it does, that has a chilling effect on open discourse. Fostering an inclusive conversation about the shape of our region is the purpose of this site, but discourse must be civil to be truly open. That's why our comment policy here on Greater Greater Washington prohibits invective like this. In our articles, we try hard to avoid crossing this line, and are disappointed when we or others do, intentionally or inadvertently.

The "war on cars" frame unnecessarily pits drivers against cyclists and pedestrians instead of working together for positive solutions. The City Paper article, by Aaron Wiener, does a good job of debunking that, and is worth reading for much more than the insults it quotes.

When pressed, Townsend told Wiener he wants to back away from the "war on cars."

"I regret the rhetoric sometimes," he says. "Because I think that when you use that type of language, it shuts down communication with people who disagree."

We hope Townsend, his colleagues, and their superiors also regret the things he said about David and Greater Greater Washington. We look forward to the day when AAA ceases using antagonistic language and begins working toward safety, mobility, and harmony among all road users.

In the meantime, residents do have a choice when purchasing towing, insurance, and travel discounts. Better World Club is one company that offers many of the same benefits as AAA, but without the disdain.

289 comments

Hold DC's primary in November, not July

Tue, 01 Feb 2011 11:53:00 EDT

by Mark Jordan

Councilmember Mary Cheh announced yesterday that to comply with the federally mandated Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act, she will propose moving the District's primary elections from September to July. Instead, DC should consolidate the primary and general into a single November nonpartisan election, with Instant Runoff Voting.

Photo by ehnotsomuch42 on Flickr.

The MOVE Act requires the District to transmit absentee ballots to military and overseas voters no later than 45 days before an election. The District's current practice of holding September primaries does not provide sufficient time for the Board of Elections to prepare and disseminate ballots consistent with the MOVE Act.

Moving the primaries to August would solve that problem, but many DC residents take vacations in August. July is better, but it would create a worse problem: extended lame-duck periods for incumbents who lose or who are not running for reelection.

This is a recipe for bad governance. Given DC's Democratic-dominated process, many Councilmembers, the Mayor, and, beginning in 2014, the Attorney General would all remain in office for up to half a year after a presumptive successor has been chosen in the only truly competitive contest.

There are better solutions to the logistical problem created by the MOVE Act, which not only would reduce lame-duck periods and save the cash-strapped Board of Elections money, but, more importantly, they would enfranchise more voters in the District and create more legitimate election results.

Topher Mathews advocated last year for scrapping the primary system and instituting an Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) system in the District. Implemented in tandem, these two proposals would allow DC to comply with the MOVE Act by providing for a single November election.

Having the election which really counts in November, rather than June, would also increase overall turnout, since more voters participate in the national election in November than a local-only primary. Some policymakers actually considered moving DC's primary to February, to coincide with the presidential primary, but that would have made the lame-duck problem far worse.

Among alternatives to the current election system, IRV is relatively easy for voters to comprehend, an important criterion for any election system. Rather than cast a vote for a single candidate, voters rank candidates for each office in order of their preference.

Votes are counted in rounds. If there is no candidate with support of a majority after the first round, the least popular candidate is eliminated. Every ballot is then counted again, this time using the highest ranked remaining candidate on each ballot. The process is repeated until one candidate receives at least 50 percent of all votes cast.

The clear advantage of such a system is that it bestows greater legitimacy on an election winner than a winner-by-plurality system. Furthermore, because voters' preferences count even after their first choice candidate is eliminated from a race due to insufficient support, IRV systems encourage voters to express their genuine preferences without risking losing influence in the election.

An IRV-based election would also solve the problem DC Democrats are grappling with in the April 26 special election to fill the at-large Council seat. 21 individuals have already picked up candidate petitions. In an electoral field that crowded, it will be next to impossible for any candidate to win a majority of votes.

This is consistent with the history of special elections in the District. In the 4 special elections for Council seats that have taken place since 1994, no winning candidate has won a majority of ballots cast.

Many party Democrats are concerned about repeating 1997's special election where Arrington Dixon, chosen by the Democratic State Committee, lost to then-Republican David Catania in a special election in which Democrats split their votes between two candidates from the party.

Some candidates are alleging that party insiders have pressured them to drop out to unify the Democratic field behind Sekou Biddle and prevent Patrick Mara from winning with a more unified base of Republicans as well as supportive Democrats. An IRV system would eliminate the need for these tactics.

Biddle already has experience winning in similar circumstances. In 2007, he won a special election for a Board of Education seat. In a field of 8 candidates, he reigned victorious with 30 percent of the vote, beating a competitor by less than 2 percentage points.

Complying with the MOVE Act is but the most recent reason for the Council to consider omnibus election reform. In addition to eliminating partisan primaries and adopting an IRV system, the Council should rationalize the process for filling vacated Council seats. Collectively, these changes will increase voter participation and avoid long lame-duck periods or backroom strategizing, leaving the decision to all residents of DC.

42 comments

DC primaries should be scrapped (Aug 26, 2010)
Go vote! (Sep 14, 2010)
DC Dems should appoint a caretaker to Kwame Brown's seat (Nov 14, 2010)
Biddle's next challenge: Showing independence (Jan 7, 2011)
Biddle is best of candidates for at-large appointment (Jan 5, 2011)

Orange objects to a fairer special election process

Tue, 16 Nov 2010 15:49:00 EDT

by Mark Jordan

DCDSC National Committeeman Vincent Orange, a presumptive leader in the race to fill Kwame Brown's to-be-vacated at-large council seat, is drawing battle lines around any proposals to amend the Home Rule Act or convince the DSDSC to appoint a caretaker.

Image from Orange for Chair.

In an e-mail to committee members, Orange suggests that the Democratic party is being targeted unfairly. He suggests Greater Greater Washington's criticism of the appointment process is actually a masked effort to add an Independent or Republican to the Council.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Here's Orange's email:

There is a movement to manipulate the DCDSC out of its power granted to us by the Home Rule Act. There is a desire to weaken the DCDSC by placing an Independent or Republican on the DC Council through the Special Election process. We must stay focus[sic] on the mission granted to us by the Home Rule Act. If this was a Republican At Large vacancy or Independent At-Large vacancy, there would not be an editorial entitled "Getting a leg up on D.C. Council". We cannot let the Washington Post or Greater Greater Washington divide the DCDSC or manipulate the intent of the Home Rule Act.
See below the latest twist on the election process. Remember, no one contacted the DCDSC for comment on trying to amend the Home Rule Act.
Together we stand with the Home Rule Act, divided, we fall.

First, Orange is mistaken about the DCDSC being singled out. The argument against allowing a partisan state committee to appoint at-large councilmembers applies equally to Democrats, Republicans, DC Statehood Greens, or any other party. Any amendment to the Home Rule Act should address all parties equally.

We can't speak for the Washington Post, but we certainly would call for the same thing if this were a Republican vacancy. If it were an Independent at-large vacancy, the Home Rule Act would not give any party committee the power to appoint a successor. Instead, the full DC Council would fill the seat until the special election.

While still a flawed process, it is marginally better than an appointment by a political party. As we previously argued, however, at-large vacancies should be treated no differently than ward vacancies, and should be left vacant until filled by special election.

Second, in stating, "We must stay focused on the mission granted to us by the Home Rule Act," Orange focuses on the authority currently delegated to political parties as if it carries some moral authority. But as the history of the U.S. constitution and individual state constitutions makes clear, mere inclusion in a constitution (or Home Rule Act) is not synonymous with either justice or good governance, which is why have amendment processes. And the Home Rule Act is far from a perfect document, such as giving Congress too much authority over the District's affairs. Why revere its pecularities?

Finally, there is no effort to "weaken the DCDSC by placing an Independent or Republican on the DC Council through the special election process." To the contrary, there is only an effort to ensure a fair special election process, unencumbered by the current undemocratic process.

This is consistent with an argument Orange himself made in an October 22 e-mail to the DCDSC, in which he wrote that "[t]he beauty about democracy is that it boils down to the one person, one vote theory. The majority prevails."

There are over 440,000 registered voters in the District as of August 2010. Fifty percent plus 1 votes from an 81-member body does not represent a majority prevailing in the election of an at-large councilmember. The seat should be filled only after all registered voters have an opportunity to weigh in on the decision.

Orange himself has served as an elected ward member in the past, has run twice for at-large positions, and certainly would make a credible run at the at-large vacancy in next year's special election. If he wants to strengthen the Democratic party as he says he does, he should forgo the temporary appointment process and win the seat in a fair contest.

68 comments

DC Dems should appoint a caretaker to Kwame Brown's seat (Nov 14, 2010)
Future at-large member will sit on important committees (Dec 22, 2010)
Candidates short on details as DCDSC ponders appointment (Dec 29, 2010)
Hold DC's primary in November, not July (Feb 1, 2011)
DC primaries should be scrapped (Aug 26, 2010)

DC Dems should appoint a caretaker to Kwame Brown's seat

Sun, 14 Nov 2010 12:04:00 EDT

by Mark Jordan

In January, DC Council Chairman-elect Kwame Brown will vacate his current at-large seat, and the DC Democratic State Committee will appoint a temporary successor. This is a terrible provision of the law. The DCDSC should select someone who doesn't plan to run permanently, and the Home Rule Act should be amended to remove this appointment power.

Photo by Steve Rhodes on Flickr.

The DC Home Rule Act calls for the party committee to fill vacancies in partisan at-large seats, but not in ward seats, until a special election can be held.

In this case, that special election will likely happen during the first week of May 2011. Since Kwame Brown was elected as a Democrat, that means the DCDSC will fill the seat. However, the DCDSC is not representative of the will of the voters, and picking any of the contenders for the seat long-term will lack legitimacy and carry the stink of insider dealing.

Oddly, the Home Rule Act does not require vacated ward seats to be filled by appointment (by a political party or otherwise) on a temporary basis, which seems backwards. If there is an urgency to fill vacated legislative seats immediately, that urgency applies most to vacated ward seats. When a ward seat is empty, that ward's residents lose representation. When at-large seats are vacated, everyone in the city loses representation equally. At-large seats, both partisan and independent, should not be treated differently.

An appointment to an elected office immediately endows the appointee with unearned incumbent status, giving that person an unfair advantage in the subsequent election. The appointee will have several months to cast votes on important issues, including the budget, give out favors and accumulate loyalties. A party committee should not have the power to grant the advantage of incumbency. Only the voters should do that.

The party committee is hardly representative of Democrats, let alone all the voters of DC. The DCDSC comprises 82 members. Of those, 48 members are elected in closed Democratic primaries in presidential election years. In 2008, 41,443 Democrats cast votes in the Democratic primary, or 10% of all registered voters in the District. Over 100,000 registered non-Democrats in the District, including Republicans, DC Statehood Greens, and Independents, could not participate in that election by law.

The remaining 34 members of the DCDSC are not elected in a primary, but rather are selected either by the DCDSC members themselves, or by members of specified affiliated organizations. Here is a list of the current members of the DCDSC and the votes they received in the 2008 primary election, where applicable.

Making the most generous assumption possible, if you assume that all 80 members were to vote unanimously for one candidate, DCDSC members elected by somewhere between 20,000 and 41,000 unique Democratic voters, or between 4% and 9% of all registered voters in the District as of August 2010, would be appointing the next at-large legislator.

But one hopeful could reach the 50% plus 1 vote with only the 38 DCDSC members who were not elected in the 2008 primary, plus the 3 lowest vote recipients, who collectively garnered 3338 Democratic votes, or less than 1% of all registered voters as of August 2010, and all of which were cast in Ward 1.

Unfortunately, there's more bad news. The list above does not accurately capture the DCDSC members who will be electing our next at-large councilmember. The DCDSC held an election on November 4 to select 12 new ex-officio members, who will take office on December 2. The results of that election are not posted publicly.

When I called the DCDSC to ask for the results, I was told that there is 1-week certification period, after which time the results would be made available. We do know that the 12 new members will be 6 men and 6 women from this list.

Were this just a private political organization, it would hardly matter. But since its members are now legally authorized to perform a fundamentally public function, we are all stakeholders and we deserve transparency.

Of course, with hundreds of millions of dollars in budget shortfalls to be addressed this fiscal year and next, Council will be conducting urgent business between January and May. But that argues against allowing the DCDSC to fill the vacancy, not for it. If the vacant position must be filled, it should be by someone or some entity with a public mandate from an open and fair election. The DCDSC certainly does not qualify.

Furthermore, leaving Republicans, Independents, and others out of the selection process could be particularly pernicious in the District in the immediate wake of the recent Mayoral primary, after they unsuccessfully fought for enfranchisement in the primary.

There is also a broader point here. District residents and leaders rightly demand equal political representation in and autonomy from Congress. Our local politicians juxtapose our status as the capital of the greatest democracy in the world with the District's historical quasi-colonial status. It helps the District's cause when we demonstrate that we govern our own democracy well.

Many states have similarly poor processes, so one could argue that the District is just acting like most other states by using a fundamentally undemocratic selection method. However, we should lead by example, demonstrating that those in power locally can correct a clear flaw in our system, even when that correction is to their own detriment.

Changing the Home Rule Act requires a public referendum or an act of Congress. Council should pass a resolution requesting that Congress amend the Home Rule Act as soon as possible to treat at-large vacancies like ward vacancies and leave the seats open until a special election is conducted. Since such a change would not take effect in time for this appointment, the DCDSC should follow the "democratic" part of its own party's name and leave the choice to the voters by picking someone with no intention to serve long term.

Editor's note: This post has been in the works for a few days, but the timing turns out to be particularly appropriate given the Post's editorial this morning also questioning the bizarre logic of this appointment process.

9 comments

Orange objects to a fairer special election process (Nov 16, 2010)
Hold DC's primary in November, not July (Feb 1, 2011)
DC primaries should be scrapped (Aug 26, 2010)
Future at-large member will sit on important committees (Dec 22, 2010)
Biddle is best of candidates for at-large appointment (Jan 5, 2011)

Lincoln Park CaBi station decision imminent

Tue, 19 Oct 2010 07:53:00 EDT

by Mark Jordan

DDOT will make a final decision about the placement of a Lincoln Park area CaBi station within days, Chris Holben told an occasionally animated but civil ANC meeting last night.

Image from Google Maps.

According to Holben, the island on the northeast corner has some advantages over the previously-suggested southeast corner. The northeast island is larger, enabling the bike rack to be placed parallel to 13th Street.

This placement would also deter some crossing between intersections that is currently possible from the island across 13th Street.

Holben also confirmed that National Park Service concession contracts interfere with putting a station inside the park itself. DDOT intends to continue to pursue placement of bikes on NPS land, but to do so, they must convince the Department of Interior attorneys that CaBi is a transit system, placing it outside of the scope of NPS's existing contracts.

After initially ruling out an initial proposal on the west side of the park as too small, DDOT proposed the pedestrian island on the SE corner of Lincoln Park. For reasons that were not made clear at the time, the SE corner proposal was canceled. At last night's ANC meeting, residents wanted an explanation.

According to Holben, DDOT heard a number of concerns including possible vandalism, noise, safety (both pedestrian and bicyclist), potentially obstructed sight lines on Mass Ave. and 13th Street, and the potential for the bikes to be an attractive nuisance to children. An ANC commissioner from 6A pointed out that if those were issues on the southeast triangle, surely they also would be issues on the northeast island as well. Thus, what was the rationale for the change?

Within the context of the community meeting, it was difficult to pursue a sustained line of questioning, but as best I could decipher, the initial opposition to the SE triangle proposal was enough of an impetus to cause DDOT to revisit the site.

Reading the tea leaves, the question seems not to be if a CaBi station will be placed near Lincoln Park, but where, and the northeast pedestrian triangle seems to be the presumptive favorite at this point. Of course, moving the bike rack from the SE corner to the NE corner mitigates few, if any, of the litany of concerns DDOT heard about the SE triangle.

To the extent the risks are real, the proposal would simply relocate them a block away. Perhaps DDOT simply became convinced the NE triangle was better, since the original sites were only tentative. Or, perhaps the simply looked for a site where people would object less loudly.

Most encouraging to me about the meeting was the absence of outright opposition to a CaBi station in the Lincoln Park area. To be sure, some neighborhood residents voiced strong opposition to specific site proposals, citing a litany of concerns, primarily related to biker and pedestrian safety, but no one suggested that a CaBi station in the neighborhood was an unworthy goal.

There were clearly a respectable number of supporters present in the audience, ranging from a group of young men wearing the official-issue, black CaBi t-shirt, to the originator of the online petition supporting the Lincoln Park CaBi station, representing a group of 18 supportive community members.

ANC6B candidate Brian Pate came prepared with a proposal that would place the CaBi Station on 13th Street along the park, removing one lane of traffic and creating additional parking. A number of individuals who live across from one of the pedestrian triangles under consideration showed up to support the placement of the CaBi station on the site.

DDOT views CaBi as a transit system, most of which lose money; however, compared with other transit systems in the city, such as the Circulator, which recovers 20 to 30 percent of its operating costs, DDOT believes CaBi may recover as much as 75% of operating costs in subscription and usage fees.

CaBi cost $6.4 million in capital and operational costs in year one and will cost $1.4 million in operating costs in subsequent years. According to a recent government study, London, which recently implemented the same bike share system, albeit on a much larger scale, is on pace to recover the total cost of its system in 2-3 years.

DDOT will also learn today whether they won a federal TIGER II grant award for an additional 1000 CaBi bikes in the region.

16 comments

DDOT will place CaBi station on NE corner of Lincoln Park (Oct 23, 2010)
Lincoln Park CaBi station canceled after complaints (Sep 30, 2010)
On the calendar: Lincoln Park CaBi tonight, tons Wednesday (Oct 18, 2010)
On the calendar: Lockwood, Gray, Walter Reed, McMillan Sand, Lincoln Park CaBi, retro bikes and much more (Oct 14, 2010)
Georgetown ANC debates additional CaBi stations tonight (Nov 29, 2010)

Lincoln Park CaBi station canceled after complaints

Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:10:00 EDT

by Mark Jordan

Neighborhood opposition has scotched a proposed Capital Bikeshare site near Lincoln Park, disappointing residents eagerly awaiting a station.

I was excited about Capital Bikeshare's ("CaBi") much-heralded September 20, 2010 launch in the District. As a Capitol Hill resident who walks 15 minutes to a Metro stop, I was eager for the arrival of a proposed CaBi station on a pedestrian island near Lincoln Park. Nine days later, the station is gone from the plans, my neighborhood is stationless, and our prospects for a CaBi station in the near future are unclear.

The promised station would have occupied a bricked-over pedestrian island on the southeast corner of Lincoln Park, where East Capitol and Mass Ave split.

The island, one of the many triangular plots that dot the District as a byproduct of L'Enfant's use of a grid street pattern with radial avenues, serves ably as a pedestrian island. Otherwise, this oversized triangle of land is not used. But after requesting and receiving public input on the proposed site, DDOT opted not to use the island, citing "citizen concerns."

As of now, there is no alternative on the table, but there are reports that DDOT is considering a different pedestrian triangle at the NE corner of the park or a site within Lincoln Park. Locating the station in the park would require approval of the National Park Service, and NPS's existing concession contracts may prevent them from approving anything.

I was disheartened by both the decision and the lack of transparency about its rationale. Apparently, I was not alone. This week, a Capitol Hill resident started an online petition urging DDOT to restore the bike station to the SE pedestrian triangle. As of this posting, the petition has over three dozen signatures.

Given the apparent neighborhood demand for a CaBi station, I am confident that a station will be forthcoming. Nevertheless, I worry about what this incident portends for future efforts to place CaBi stations in strictly residential neighborhoods. The experience provides a useful case study that DDOT should learn from as they expand into additional residential areas.

I have heard opponents of the use of the pedestrian island advance versions of four arguments against the use of the site:

Biker Safety: Bikers, the argument goes, would have to cross a busy street to access bikes on the island and thereafter merge directly onto a busy street. But neither of the two proposed alternatives offers any more safety to bikers. Under any of the scenarios, pedestrians would have to cross one street to access the bikes, and in each case there are existing crosswalks.

Furthermore, from any of the locations, bikers would merge with either East Capitol or comparably busy streets (11th, 13th , or Mass Ave). Arguably, the stop lights at the pedestrian triangles offer more safety to bike users relative to a location within Lincoln Park insofar as the average moving speed of vehicles at an intersection with a stop light would be lower than at other points around the park.

Crime: It's unclear to me how this argument works. The claim is not that the bikes would be stolen or vandalized; that argument should apply to any of the proposed sites. Rather, the claim seems to be that the bikes might be more broadly criminogenic—that they may attract other mischief, nuisance, or criminal behavior.

This logic seems attenuated at best. Accepting for a moment that the bikes somehow generate more crime per se, it's not clear why either of the proposed alternatives would be more acceptable. They would merely redistribute the supposed crime geographically.

More fundamental, though, is whether the premise of the objection is sound. What kind of crime would the bikes generate? And who would be victimized? Is it the bike users, who could choose to weigh the risks against their benefits, or is it the neighborhood residents more broadly who would be at risk?

If there is a real concern about crime, someone should articulate the specific concern and why the associated risks are acceptable in the alternate sites, but not at the originally proposed site.

Noise: While potentially related to certain criminal or nuisance activities, concerns about noise levels are conceptually separable. Might not the bikes, the docks, and the associated increase in people create noise that would impact nearby residents? How much additional pedestrian and bike traffic would an 11-bike dock create and at what times of day?

These are reasonable questions and presumably there are empirical answers. I don't have any data. But I do have an intuition. By my crude estimate, the facades of the houses closest to the SE pedestrian triangle are at least 75 feet away from the proposed site. My strong suspicion is that the 11 bikes would generate substantially less noise than most individual vehicles that drive along East Capitol Street and Massachusetts Avenue, which pass much closer to those houses than 75 feet. As CaBi expands into additional residential neighborhoods, it would be wise to anticipate this objection and be prepared with data on noise levels.

Aesthetics: This is probably the most nettlesome and least discussed issue. People care about how their neighborhoods look. They also share public space, but not necessarily the same preferences. At the extreme, this confluence of shared space and divergent tastes can result in situations like last year's rabid, frothy-mouthed debate in Adams Morgan over a proposed piece of public art.

I've heard various objections that the CaBi stations are "unsightly" and "intrusive." I happen to disagree. It gives me a certain sense of civic pride to see a bike share in the neighborhood. I will not try to convince anyone of the beauty of CaBi stations. I will, however, argue that that whatever one's position about the aesthetic of the stations, it should be weighed against other public values, like the environment, and public transportation needs.

47 comments

Lincoln Park CaBi station decision imminent (Oct 19, 2010)
DDOT will place CaBi station on NE corner of Lincoln Park (Oct 23, 2010)
On the calendar: Lincoln Park CaBi tonight, tons Wednesday (Oct 18, 2010)
Georgetown ANC debates additional CaBi stations tonight (Nov 29, 2010)
On the calendar: Lockwood, Gray, Walter Reed, McMillan Sand, Lincoln Park CaBi, retro bikes and much more (Oct 14, 2010)