The issue with Kingman Park signals a deeper problem with community, civic and neighborhood associations.

Unlike ANCs which are at least elected every two years and have some sort of relationship to the city, these residential associations have no responsibility to the communities they purport to serve nor the city. Yes, there are Federations that these smaller groups are sometimes affiliated with, but in total, there is no oversight or check and balance.

To wit, at the recent City Council oversight hearing related to the Zoning Code update, several individuals testified on behalf of their neighborhood associations. However a quick scan yielded minimal or no websites, minimal or no listserv or blog or any other social media engagement.

It is hard to know how many residents are (or are not) affiliated with these so-called groups, much less any process whereby consensus was formed to authorize testimony or advocacy on behalf of the name or a larger community.

Does the Council or Zoning Commission require any sort of validation on this front? If not, it should.

by Andrew on Oct 11, 2012 8:50 am • link • report

First rule of Kingman Park is don't talk about Kingman Park.

by Bossi on Oct 11, 2012 9:31 am • link • report

Bikes get more green in the rain

Two remarks: Why not always give bikes more green. And I am waiting for the first smart ass to take it drink bottle and wet the sensor...

by Jasper on Oct 11, 2012 10:00 am • link • report

The "good behavior" clause reminds me of the bylaws of some yacht clubs. If you go around saying bad things about fellow club members in public, then you shouldn't be part of the club, is the reasoning of the typical yacht club. Basically, these rules codify common sense, although doing so perhaps indicates a lack of common sense.

No member or non-member will be permitted to obtain or retain membership...if he or she disparages, defames, libels, or discusses other members of the association in and through print media, electronic mail [e-mail], telephone or any other mode of communication...

So if you are a gossip, libeler, or defamer, this is not the club for you. If you want to hang out with gossips. libelers, and defamers this may not be the club for you.

Citizens associations often have bylaws to prevent temporary hostile takeovers by a group of people who usually don't participate but decide to become involved for a single issue. My association prevents people from voting the first meeting they attend, for example. For some reason this association seems to let you vote right away, unless you are not in "good standing". I imagine that keeping the bylaws secret are meant to make it a bit less obvious that any large committed group of residents could attend a single meeting, pay $10, and hijack the association for whatever purpose they want.

They probably should drop the secrecy and good-behavior standard in favor of a clause requiring attendence of a given number of meetings.

by Jim T on Oct 11, 2012 10:04 am • link • report

these rules codify common sense

A rule against discussing the behavior and decisions of other members isn't common sense at all! It's actually designed to keep the neighborhood association not a representative of the neighborhood but rather a narrowly focused interest group.

What this indicates to me is that "neighborhood associations" need to have certain standards if we're supposed to recognize their input as representative.

There's nothing against forming a secret society to push your agenda along with you and your friends. But don't go around calling yourself "a neighborhood association."

by JustMe on Oct 11, 2012 10:08 am • link • report

@ JimT:They probably should drop the secrecy and good-behavior standard in favor of a clause requiring attendence of a given number of meetings.

Why? How is this democratic? Why can't one silently agree with what's going on, until shit hits the fan? This is just vote-suppression.

to prevent temporary hostile takeovers by a group of people who usually don't participate but decide to become involved for a single issue.

And with 'hostile' you mean 'disagreeing with the status-quo of the power-holders'.

by Jasper on Oct 11, 2012 10:31 am • link • report

CP has a story that WaPo evidently dropped a piece on how Nat's Stadium is a financial drag on DC :

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2012/10/10/anti-nationals-stadium-story-spiked-by-post-says-writer/

by Tom Coumaris on Oct 11, 2012 10:36 am • link • report

A little specificity from the guy would be nice because all the actual facts surrounding the stadiums cost point to the opposite of what he is claiming. How exactly is the city losing money?

The debt servicing on the Bonds for the stadium cost the city 32 million a year, and the tax revenue and special tax created to pay for the stadium have been creating about 50 milllion a year, or about a 20 million surplus every year. There have been numerous stories the past 3 or 4 years as to how the city was using the surplus stadium revenue to fill holes in the city budget.

I personally hate that we as taxpayer had to build a billionare his toy, but we aren't losing money on it.

by Stadium on Oct 11, 2012 11:36 am • link • report

Kingman Park has a chaplin? And a Sergeant-at-Arms?

The Sergent-at-Arms shall preserve order and shall perform such duties as may properly be performed by such officer.

That's hilarious. He's legally required to do whatever he's required to do.

And that is a buttload of committees they got going. Looks like they're trying to emulate the U.S. Congress.

by Jack Love on Oct 11, 2012 11:54 am • link • report

Stadium- I think the general idea is that when you impose a tax (in this case on businesses grossing over $5m) that tax could have been used for other or general purposes. Saying it's directed toward paying for a stadium is a slight of hand.

Also there's a certain amount of debt a city can carry and using it for one purpose subtracts from other items the city could finance.

If we only were to consider the tax on tickets, concessions, etc the stadium directly brings in, there's no way a stadium pays for itself.

There are those who would argue that near SE would never have developed without Nat's Park. I don't buy that. And in addition Nat's Park takes a lot of real estate off the property tax rolls.

by Tom Coumaris on Oct 11, 2012 12:31 pm • link • report

@ Tom,

The tax supporting the stadium bonds was a special brand new tax levied (on their explicit approval) on District businesses grossing over 5 million a year specifically for the stadium.

The business community agreed to this, but specifically for the stadium. It wasn't like Mayor Williams or Fenty levied a general business tax and then decided after the fact to use it to pay for the stadium.

If the stadium wasn't built, this tax and the corresponding revenue wouldn't exist. It isn't like you could have redirected that money to anything else, so I am not sure what your point is.

If you can convince the business community to pay a tax for "insert your preferred purpose here", then by all means.

And yes, we all know DC has debt limits and bond ratings to be aware of, but if DC was going to use some of its debt capacity for something, I would prefer that the city actually return a profit on it, rather than spend it on something that is a money pit in the short, medium and long term.

Lastly,

I am sure you are right. "Eventually" SE DC would have developed on its own, but considering the District was already 7 years into its largest real estate boom in the history of the city and not one developer had announced plans for SE or put a spade in the ground, until Mayor Williams announced which of the 4 proposed locations would serve as the new stadiums location, I think that DC would have had to wait decades.

The 6 city blocks between I and m and New Jersey and South Capitol was nothing but a couple strip clubs and a bunch of car lots and run down single story buildings.

The Ballpark District alone will contain 465,000 to 785,000 square feet of retail/restaurant space, 350,000 to 1,600,000 square feet of office space, 1,900,000 to 3,600,000 square feet (1570 to 2980 units) of residential space, and we havent't talked about the ancillary development at The Yards etc.

I am not a big fan of locking up public money for the benefit of billionares, but all development needs an anchor before it will happen, and the Stadium was a huge anchor to the area, like Target was to Columbia Heights, and in the end DC is actually making money on the stadium specific bonds so it worked out much, much better than it typically does for jurisdictions doing the same thing.

by Stadium on Oct 11, 2012 1:24 pm • link • report

@Stadium

The biggest catalyst for development in near SE was the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, coupled with the Navy's decision to move a large number of offices to the Navy Yard.

The wars gave the contractors money to spend and the Navy's relocation gave them reason to need office space in Near SE.

by dcdriver on Oct 11, 2012 2:58 pm • link • report

@dcdriver,

You have to be joking. Please remove tin foil hat and try again.

by Stadium on Oct 11, 2012 3:38 pm • link • report

1. The navy contractors followed NavSea to SE before the wars.

2. Since NavSea basically procures, you know, SHIPS, I'm not sure their budget was much helped by the wars.

by MStreetDenizen on Oct 11, 2012 3:53 pm • link • report

dcdriver is right about office space. And that process was driven by the BRAC process from the late 1990s (+ US DOT's relocation). (E.g., I remember sitting on a wayfinding signs committee in probably 2002 with someone from the Navy Yard, and the BRAC relocation process had already been underway for a few years.)

But the office part of M St. SE is a drag. Very dull. Especially after the work day. People don't do much out of the office but go quick service restaurants.

You needed the addition/redevleopment of residential to start making a neighborhood.

That didn't have to happen with a stadium, but various anchors would be needed, and the stadium certainly brands the neighborhood.

But yes, like "East End" (and Verizon Center) eventually the area would have developed without the sports arena/stadium. However, even I--a staunch opponent of public funding mostly of these kinds of facilities--have to admit that the sports facilities are important anchors and contributors to street vitality in those areas.

by Richard Layman on Oct 11, 2012 4:15 pm • link • report

"Since NavSea basically procures, you know, SHIPS, I'm not sure their budget was much helped by the wars."

Everybody's budget was helped by the wars.

by Kolohe on Oct 11, 2012 4:39 pm • link • report

@Justme: I think that it is common sense not to "disparages, defames, libels, or discusses other members of" a club of which one is a member "in and through print media, electronic mail [e-mail], telephone or any other mode of communication..." Common sense. Who wants to hang out with people who disparage, defame, and libel them? (It's a bit quaint to actually specify this in the rules but its quite common in old clubs.)

@Jasper. Rules that require some sort of commitment in order to vote are common. Even voting in a public election usually requires 30 days of residence, and few people would change legal residence just to vote. It's so easy to just show up to a single meeting of an organization that you have no intention of helping, just to influence its position, and thereby undermine the voice of those who have committed to make it what it is.

If there is an NGO that you value, imagine its annual meeting which is sparsely attended. Suppose 25 people with the opposite agenda show up, vote out the board of directors, and immediately fire the staff and start pushing a contrary agenda.

By "hostile takeover" you are correct. I mean it in the ordinary sense of the term, i.e. someone from outside an organization who intends to change its direction. They could be very nice about it, and still be a "hostile takeover".

by Jim T on Oct 11, 2012 5:48 pm • link • report

I think theres some lack of clarity about whether a neighborhood association is a social club, or a political body that has the right to speak for a neighborhood.

If its a political body, with a pretense to representativeness, then discouraging the airing of disagreements would seem to be a problem.

As for voting, we have campaigns to remind people to register to vote so their voice will be heard. We do not have such for participation in neighborhood associations, that I am aware of.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 11, 2012 5:58 pm • link • report

Richard- I think an "anchor" is a continuing thing. While Nat Park may have been a catalyst, it's not an "anchor". If it were torn down tomorrow would the neighbor decline? Or would it be replaced with new properties hopefully on the tax rolls?

And as for Verizon Center, I absolutely believe that the Penn Ave Development Commission was responsible for Penn Quarter and private development would have kept moving up 7th, the center of "old downtown". And they would have been properties on the tax rolls and not constant sponges of public money. And if VC were torn down tomorrow it would rapidly be replaced with tax producing properties.

But we'd lose a lot of official sky boxes and pay-to-play which is, after all, what counts.

by Tom Coumaris on Oct 11, 2012 6:01 pm • link • report