That's disappointing that NCPC isn't tracking the alt. Eisenhower design competition. Is there anything the public can do to pressure them to looking at the alternatives? In my opinion the Gehry design is terrible and would love to see ANY of the alternatives.

by Shipsa01 on Jun 13, 2011 9:37 am • link • report

DC has multiple seats on the NCPC, would they be open to looking at alternatives? Also, contact your representatives/senators (if you have them).

by Steve S. on Jun 13, 2011 10:28 am • link • report

Which Ward is it currently located in? I think it's in 2, but soon to be in 6. I guess I'll contact both CM Evans and Wells. And I'm a resident of 6 (Mt. Vernon Square) so maybe I'll have a little more sway with Wells - plus I work in the Humphrey building a block away.

by Shipsa01 on Jun 13, 2011 10:36 am • link • report

@Shipsa

It's currently in Ward 2, but also in ANC 6D.

The proposed redistricting would move the Memorial site to Ward 6. The proposed boundary would be Independence Avenue:

http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/media/redistrictingmeeting/DraftPlan_6%20%282%29.pdf

So, it would be right on the line, but on the Ward 6 side of it.

by Alex B. on Jun 13, 2011 10:40 am • link • report

Mara's statement as he joined the DC Vote Board is poorly chosen. According to the Examiner article, Mara said, “We’re American citizens, so we should at least have more rights than Puerto Rico.”

In fact, Puerto Ricans are American citizens. If there's an argument that we should have more rights than Puerto Ricans (those living in Puerto Rico), it's that we pay federal taxes and they do not. We're not more American than they are.

It's worth noting that though Puerto Ricans living in Puerto Rico do not pay federal taxes, they are not permitted to vote for President in the general election. So, in fact, they don't have all of the same rights that we do.

by Mark Jordan on Jun 13, 2011 10:58 am • link • report

Some good comments at The Triangle on the 5th and I project: http://www.mvtriangleblog.com/?p=3422#comments

by Matt W on Jun 13, 2011 11:06 am • link • report

@Mark Jordan

Perhaps Mara's wording could be more clear, but there's nothing wrong with his idea.

"Taxation without Representation" involves two concepts - taxation and representation. We pay all the taxes with none of the representation.

Puerto Rico's deal is eminently fair - less taxation for less representation. Ours is not. PR has some balance between their burden and benefits while DC does not - that's the concept Mara is getting at.

by Alex B. on Jun 13, 2011 11:13 am • link • report

@Mark Jordan

Only partially correct. All Puerto Ricans pay U.S. FICA taxes (i.e. social security and medicare), though many do not pay the standard federal income tax. However, citizens working for the U.S. government or U.S. corporations in Puerto Rico still pay all federal taxes. Puerto Ricans are also subject to the other U.S. federal excise taxes.

Having said that, while the District and Puerto Rico share the same frustration over voting rights, I would argue that Puerto Ricans enjoy a much better deal in that they at least have self-government over their local affairs. Laws passed by the Legislative Assembly don't have any waiting period, their budget doesn't have to be actively approved by Congress, etc. In that sense, I think they've got the better deal.

by Adam L on Jun 13, 2011 11:15 am • link • report

@Adam L

Self-government is a home rule issue, not a representation issue. The two are related, but separate. DC does not have full home rule because it is the National Capital. This is not unique, lots of countries have federal districts where the national government exercises full control over the Capital City. However, all of those countries still have some sort of representation for the citizens of that city in the national legislature.

A lack of complete home rule would be a lot easier pill to swallow if DC had actual (and full) representation in the ultimate authoritative body over the Capital.

by Alex B. on Jun 13, 2011 11:55 am • link • report

@Alex B. - I agree that there's nothing wrong with the idea, but I think the idea is going to get lost in the wording. If he's going to sell that concept, it can't be about District residents' "Americanness."

But, in the context of Adam L's point, below, I think the distinction between Puerto Rico's plight and the District's plight begins to disappear.

@Adam L - That's a useful point about FICA taxes. That residents of Puerto Rico pay any federal taxes without representation is problematic. That their rates are lower than ours is really beside the point from a normative point of view (of course, from a financial point of view, they have the better deal).

It seems to me that DC and Puerto Rico both have unacceptable political statuses. I suspect different people will have different preferences about which flavor of bad they'd choose.

by Mark Jordan on Jun 13, 2011 11:57 am • link • report

Puerto Rico really has Less Taxation for Most without Representation. Which is hardly a bargain. A lot of people will say they want PR's deal - they'd give up Representation for less taxation, but it still means that people you don't elect are spending your money. And they can still send you or your kids off to war (the Draft is the other tax), set all kinds of fees for services like parks or passports, negotiate treaties that determine prices for things you do. The power to tax is very powerful, but it is hardly the limit of government.

by David C on Jun 13, 2011 12:06 pm • link • report

@Mark Jordan

There are plenty of Puerto Ricans who like their status as it is. They get some of the benefits of being a part of the US (national security, fiscal policy, etc) without paying the full price via taxation. Such is the life of a territory. You may find that unacceptable, but many do not - nor would they consider statehood to be the only path to be made whole.

DC, on the other hand, truly gets the shaft. Independence isn't really an option, however - nor is it what the people of the District want (no one is renouncing their American citizenship, for example).

That's what Mara is getting at - Independence is just as plausible for PR as statehood is. However, that is not the case for DC - even if true statehood isn't the answer (since statehood conflates the home rule and representation issues together) and it is merely a discussion of representation, you have full American citizens in DC without representation because of a line on a map.

by Alex B. on Jun 13, 2011 12:10 pm • link • report

Puerto Rico has a least a couple of times in the last 20 years had votes as to whether to seek statehood. And the vote has come out in favor of remaining something other than a state. Given that, Congress hasn't jumped all over turning PR into a state.

by ah on Jun 13, 2011 12:14 pm • link • report

ah,

That's not totally accurate. They held three non-binding votes on the issue. One in 1967 and two more in 1993 and 1998. The 1967 vote was between three options: independence, statehood and commonwealth. Commonwealth won, but the leading statehood and independence parties boycotted because they thought it should be a vote between commonwealth or not. In the 1993 vote, commmonwealth only won 48.6% of the vote (a plurality, but not a majority) and in 1998 "none of the above" won with 50.3% of the vote. This was a proxy for continued commonwealth status.

So, at best it's a mixed bag, with a little less than half the people wanting continued commonwealth status, and a little more wanting something else - mostly statehood.

But it certainly isn't a mandate for change.

by David C on Jun 13, 2011 12:36 pm • link • report

@Alex B.

There's absolutely a difference between home rule and voting representation. If the District had full voting representation in Congress (particularly the Senate), much of the home rule issues would be non-starters. Even if D.C. residents were able to vote for the Senators from Maryland, that would be a huge advance. I can almost guarantee that if 600,000 of Senator Mikulski and Senator Cardin's constituents were against a D.C.-specific provision in a bill, it wouldn't make it out of Congress.

I would also note that in other other democratic countries with national capital territories the powers of the federal government over the capital are far, far fewer than the powers Congress has over the District of Columbia. Of a list that includes India, Brazil, Australia, Mexico, Malaysia, and Argentina only the Australian Capital Territory is still subject to having local laws directly overturned by the national government. Even then, however, such actions are rare and the national government has had plebiscites in the past to allow the residents to determine any change in their political status. All the other capital territories already had or were later granted near-total autonomy over their local affairs. Delhi, for example, is an autonomous unit except for certain few situations typically relating to the security forces in the capital, etc. In Brasilia, the federal government's role in local affairs is limited to something akin to the National Capital Planning Commission. Mexico City is basically only limited in that it can't set its own debt ceiling. None of these capital territories require direct approval to spend their own money or have members of the national legislatures effectively micromanaging purely local concerns.

by Adam L on Jun 13, 2011 1:08 pm • link • report

@Adam L

I agree with everything you write - I just think it's worthwhile to separate these issues.

DC has a moral claim to full congressional representation - equal to every other citizen and resident of the United States. The claim to home rule is far more complex and open to interpretation. Focusing on that issue is, I think, too far in the weeds compared to the obvious and blatant moral issue of a lack of any representation in the very body that rules the District (to say nothing of our national issues).

by Alex B. on Jun 13, 2011 1:16 pm • link • report

NCPC is not tracking the National Civic Art Society Eisenhower Memorial competition because we are not involved in choosing architects to design memorials in Washington. For the Eisenhower Memorial, the Eisenhower Commission and the National Park Service selected the architect and then submitted the architect’s design proposals to NCPC for review. It is their decision, not NCPC’s, whether to consider the design that won the alternative competition.

by Stephen Staudigl, NCPC on Jun 13, 2011 3:01 pm • link • report

So if they (Eisenhower Comm. and NPS) wanted to they could retract their submission and resubmit a new proposal? Is that wildly out of the ordinary?

by Shipsa01 on Jun 13, 2011 3:17 pm • link • report

I'm sorry, but is there any human being with half a brain who thinks the issue is that cyclists here are riding two abreast, and not that there are drivers who want them the Hell out of the way period?

Sorry, there are always going to be cyclists on this road. If you build a multi-million dollar multi-use path on the side of the road, they'll still be riding on MacArthur Boulevard. It's one of the best routes into and out of the city for cyclists. So while you can ask for stepped up enforcement, you're never going to dissuade cyclists from riding there; all you'll do is ensure that they're riding two-abreast, and stretched out longer than they would otherwise be.

Oh, and they'll likely be going slower, so you'll be stuck going slower behind them. My guess is that what really pisses folks like Rust off is that large packs ride at approximately the speed limit. Which means that Rust has to drive at the speed limit. Boy, and there's nothing that pisses drivers off more than having to drive the speed limit.

The idea that large groups of cyclists force drivers to make unsafe passes is ludicrous. Slow down, wait for a safe chance to pass. In other words, take a deep breath and behave like an adult.

by oboe on Jun 13, 2011 4:13 pm • link • report

To add to what oboe wrote, the road is MacArthur Boulevard, not the MacArthur Freeway. One word used to describe slowing down a road and making it more friendly for bicyclists and pedestrians is "Boulevardization." No need here, it's already a boulevard. It's shown on Maryland's bike map as a scenic bike route, and it's well known to be used heavily by cyclists. Complaining about cyclists on MacArthur is equivalent to complaining about airplanes near DCA.

As for riding two abreast, there is nothing functionally better about one cyclist taking the lane than there is two doing so side by side.

by David C on Jun 13, 2011 4:24 pm • link • report

They're all pretty uninspiring. the interstate highway system, BTW, originated in the FDR administration back in the 30s. Eisenhower was not a groundbreaker like FDR. He was a manager rather and probably has a lesser stature than Patton or Marshall. The real memorial to him is the Kennedy Center, which was his vision, although his idea of culture was not quite the same as the Kennedys.

by Rich on Jun 13, 2011 4:31 pm • link • report

@Shipsa01

The answers to your questions are yes and yes. To clarify, the National Park Service submits the design for a memorial to NCPC on behalf of the memorial sponsor (in this case, the Eisenhower Memorial Foundation) because NPS is the property owner and NCPC only reviews projects on government land. But the selection of the designer is up to the sponsor. For more information, on how the process works, see the Commemorative Works Act on NCPC's website - (www.ncpc.gov -- About Us >> Legislative Authorities >> Commemorative Works Act).

by Stephen Staudigl, NCPC on Jun 13, 2011 5:47 pm • link • report

@oboe

While you were formulating your usual venemous reaction to something you don't agree with, did you stop for even one minute to think of someone other than yourself?

Sure, "there will always be cyclists on the street...even with multi-million dollar paths", but here's a newsflash: your "right" to use the road is NOT a right to hog the road. McArthur Blvd is a public street, owned by all of us. It's not your private training track. "Share the road" means what it says. It doesn't mean "shut up, stop complaining and wait patiently while we assert our rights and do our thing".

It appears that some cyclists never pass up an oppertunity to get in a driver's face for no reason other than to mark territory and express their contempt for a mode of transportation they happpen to disapprove of.

Stop and think. That driver you're trying make act the way YOU want him/her to might be heading to an important apoointment like a doctor's visit or a job interview; they might be out trying to make a living while you're simply out exercising your "rights". If someone is on their way to visit a sick friend or relative, the last thing they need is some spandexed Lance Armstrong wannabee with a territorial complex telling him to shut up and deal with it.

You would do well to take your advice and act like an adult. As it is, you sound like a a petulant child - "it's mine, all mine and I don't care!".

If a larger, more powerful, and faster vehicle wants the right of way, why can't you just move over? As long as the driver isn't breaking the law and driving recklessly, why can't you simply yield and let him/her pass? Why do you need to remain in his/her way and slow them down just to make a point? Is your ego really that fragile? If so, you need help you won't get from posting invectives on a blog.

by ceefer66 on Jun 14, 2011 8:21 am • link • report

@ceefer66

your "right" to use the road is NOT a right to hog the road.

Define "hog". That is not a term defined in Maryland law.

"Share the road" means what it says.

That's pretty vague, and many people have different opinions on what it means. Perhaps you could be more clear. Specifically, in your opinion what behavior constitutes sharing and what does not? Is riding down the middle of the road "sharing"? What about honking at a cyclist who is doing so?

That cyclist you're trying make act the way YOU want him/her to might be heading to a nuclear missile silo to deactivate a doomsday device; they might be out trying to make a living while you're simply out to go to a doctor's appointment. If some cyclist is on their way to stop an assassination attempt on the Pope, the last thing they need is some cottoned Danika Patrick wannabe with a territorial complex telling him to shut up and get out of the way.

You would do well to take your advice and act like an adult.

Considering you just called cyclists "spandexed Lance Armstrong wannabes", I'm left to wonder if you think name calling is adult behavior?

If a larger, more powerful, and faster vehicle wants the right of way, why can't you just move over?

Because it puts cyclists at greater risk of being killed.

As long as the driver isn't breaking the law and driving recklessly, why can't you simply yield and let him/her pass?

As long as the cyclist isn't breaking the law and cycling recklessly, why can't you simply yield and wait behind them. Why can't you trust them to know what is safest for them.

Why do you need to remain in his/her way and slow them down just to make a point?

This isn't why cyclists do it. They do it because it's safer. The lane isn't wide enough for you to pass them without going into the other lane. If the cyclist moves over, they will find themselves boxed in between the edge of the road and a moving car. If there were to be a pothole or tree branch in the road, they would have nowhere to go. So that puts them at risk. And if the driver were to pass to closely, they again would have nowhere to go but off the road to gain room. So cyclists are inconveniencing you for their own safety. Is your convenience more important than your safety.

Is your ego really that fragile?

Talk about ego, you think that the cyclist is doing something to you specifically. That their behavior is about you. I'll let you in on a secret, most people don't notice you. Their behavior is about them, and their safety and their family. Don't take it so personally - unless you can read minds.

by David C on Jun 14, 2011 9:47 am • link • report

@David C.

Believe it not, I also ride a bike, mainly on the trails and bike lanes.

I don't do the streets much, but I'm careful when I do. And maybe it's my survival instinct, or maybe I'm just a wimp in the eyes of the young "I'm fitter than you are because I'm a super-cyclist" types (not necessarily implying that's you), but common sense keeps me from going up against someone in a vehicle that's far heavier, faster, and more powerful than me and my lightweigh racing bike. If a driver - or another cyclist - wants to pass, I'm going to let them. Yes, it might be my right to "take the lane", but the other guy might not know that - or care.

I've been around long enough to know that there are 2 basic types of people on the road - those who are simply trying to get where they need to go quickly and safely and those who view every trip as something to prove. The latter are the ones who think it's their God-given right - and duty - to assert themselves at every opportunity and show the other guy who's right and whose wrong every time. These are the people who get around their friends and brag about who they "had to straighten out" on the way over.

Type 2 very often eventually get caught by the law of averages. Unless they're very fortunate, they eventually run up against someone who is just as stubborn and self-righteous as they are - and is willing and able to "prove" it. It's called road rage.

You see, David, I never know what kind of person is in - or on - that other vehicle. They might be having a bad day and therefor have a chip on their shoulder; they might feel put-upon just one too many times and snap; they simply might just not give a damn.

Maybe one day, you'll realize it's not about who is "better" or who is more right. It's about using some common sense.

You get the last word.

by ceefer66 on Jun 14, 2011 2:52 pm • link • report

ceefer66,

Wow, that's some real holier-than-thou writing there, and in no way answered any of the half dozen questions I asked you. You could have helped me to understand your thinking, but instead you gave me so much less.

common sense keeps me from going up against someone in a vehicle that's far heavier, faster, and more powerful than me and my lightweigh racing bike. If a driver - or another cyclist - wants to pass, I'm going to let them. Yes, it might be my right to "take the lane", but the other guy might not know that - or care.

The idea that moving out of the way is more dangerous than taking the lane might be counter-intuitive and thus not "common sense" in your opinion but it is still the widely-held opinion of most safe-cycling experts. You think moving out of the way is safer. Great. Good luck with that. Some people think otherwise and so their behavior is not about asserting rights as much as not being dead. Just as your moving over is not about giving up your rights, but about not being dead. I'm willing to accept that your behavior is done out of genuine concern for safety, and I think you should try to do the same about people who don't move over.

I've been around long enough to know that there are 2 basic types of people on the road - those who are simply trying to get where they need to go quickly and safely and those who view every trip as something to prove. The latter are the ones who think it's their God-given right - and duty - to assert themselves at every opportunity and show the other guy who's right and whose wrong every time.

And I've been around long enough to know you're in trouble when you try to divide everyone up into two groups with some bright line. First of all, I suppose all atheists are in the first group since they obviously wouldn't believe in "God-given rights". And anyone who has ever viewed even one trip as something other than something to prove. Like if you go to the water cooler and just think "I'm going to get water" then you must be in the first group, since people in the second group see "Every trip" as something to prove. And if you ever see an opportunity to asert yourself and show the other guy who's right and who's wrong and don't take it, then you must be in the first group too. Since second groupers take "every opportunity" to do so. That doesn't leave many people in group 2.

But now that I'm done ridiculing your hyperbole, let's talk about your mythical type 2 people.

This is all in your head. People are not doing this. You're making the Fundamental Attribution Error. If I'm wrong, show me where a cyclist ascribes this explanation to his or her own behavior and prove it to me. But just because you think you know why others behave in some crazy way is not evidence of anything.

Type 2 very often eventually get caught by the law of averages. Unless they're very fortunate, they eventually run up against someone who is just as stubborn and self-righteous as they are - and is willing and able to "prove" it. It's called road rage.

Really? "Often"? I dare you to find two examples where cyclist refused to move out of the way and were run over from behind.

You see ceefer66, I never know how good a driver the person behind me is, or what exactly is on the road in front of me. So I prefer to take my chances that the person behind me is not a homicidal sociopath and will wait until it is safe to pass, rather than take my chances that putting myself in a situation with no margin for error will in fact have no error.

Maybe one day you will realize that "common sense" is not a universal and is a totally overused term. People cite "common sense" only when they have no real facts to back up their position. Why should I do what you say? "Well it's only common sense." But since the behavior you advocate is the opposite of what is taught in bicycle safety books, of what is advised in every state bicycle safety handbook, is opposite of what is taught by the League of American Bicyclists in their safe cycling courses and even differs from what is taught in the Boy Scouts Bicycling merit badge book, I'm going to say it isn't so "common" and is in fact unorthodox - perhaps preposterously so . But like I said, good luck with it.

by David C on Jun 14, 2011 3:47 pm • link • report