All except Mendelson introduce overhead wire bill

Transit

All except Mendelson introduce overhead wire bill

by David Alpert • June 1, 2010 11:22 am

12 of the 13 members of the DC Council, all except for Phil Mendelson, introduced a bill today to permit overhead wires for streetcars along H Street and Benning Road, NE.

12 signatures, one blank space.

The bill, written by Councilmember Tommy Wells, re-establishes the federal ban on overhead wires as a local law, using the same authority DC has used to modify other laws about the District of Columbia that precede home rule. There's more on the legal basis in Saturday's article.

Overhead wires will continue to be prohibited inside the L'Enfant City (and Georgetown) except for the H Street-Benning Road corridor. To expand beyond that area, DDOT will have to present a citywide plan and gain Council approval. Finally, by 2014, DDOT has to present a report to the Council on "the feasibility of converting to non-aerial power" any existing overhead wire streetcar lines.

Mary Cheh, David Catania, and Jack Evans also introduced a bill, cosponsored by Jim Graham and Tommy Wells, to allow people besides religious ministers and DC judges to solemnize marriages. When Greater Greater Wife and I were getting married, we found it very odd that we couldn't get a friend, teacher, or other non-religious official certified to perform our non-religious marriage if we had wanted to.

We ended up using a nondenominational "minister" celebrant, but DC, unlike most states, sets some complex hurdles for people not part of a major religion to be certified to perform marriages, and some religious affiliation is still required. That's inappropriate, if not unconstitutional since, as Cheh noted, many DC residents are not religious yet still want to have weddings outside of a courthouse.

26 comments

Tags: DC, DC Council, marriage officiants, Mary Cheh, overhead wires, Phil Mendelson, religion, streetcars, Tommy Wells

Wells to introduce bill for overhead wires on H, Benning (May 29, 2010)
NCPC Chair Bryant asks FTA to deny streetcar grant to DC (Jun 25, 2010)
NCPC wants more power over streetcar wires (Jun 25, 2010)
Labor successfully waters down noise bill (Jun 3, 2008)
Gorge yourself on streetcars (May 5, 2010)

David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.

Comments
Add a comment »

"When Greater Greater Wife and I were getting married, we found it very odd that we couldn't get a friend, teacher, or other non-religious official certified to perform our non-religious marriage if we had wanted to."

We had our friend officiate at our wedding in DC--but right before the ceremony, the wife and I stopped by the courthouse in Arlington and had a lawyer do the official one for the record. Best of both worlds that day, and no dealing with the DC government.

I agree that the law in DC should be changed.

by JB on Jun 1, 2010 11:59 am • link • report

If I become a "nondenominational 'minister' celebrant" too can I park anywhere I want on Sundays, or do I have to have Maryland tags also?

by TimK on Jun 1, 2010 12:10 pm • link • report

In France, everyone first gets married in City Hall, and then if they want a religious ceremony they go to their church or other house of worship for the religious ceremony. This makes clear that the contractual relationship created by marriage is a civil one in the eyes of the law (hence the mayor or his/her representative officiating for legal purposes) ... and a religious one in the eyes of God (for those who so believe, where the priest/minister/rabbi,etc officiates.) I'm not sure what having a friend with no civil or religious authority perform the ceremony conveys ... other than perhaps that marriage is no longer a societal event but a private one? That worries me because all the rights and responsibilities (including tax benefits and tax responsibilities) can only come from it being a societal event vs. a private event. The slippery slope here being that someday society will no longer grant special priviledges and responsibilities to a couple ... but instead deal only with 'individuals'. And maybe that wouldn't be a bad thing now that individuals are more and more treated as individuals for all matters ... in other areas such as employment law, voting, ownership of property, etc. etc. The original marriage laws were really a 'chattel' arrangement whereby a husband 'owned' his wife (with restrictions.) Maybe now that it's more a recognition of loving bounds, maybe the whole special 'responsibilities/priviledges' thing really isn't needed anymore ... ? (And I know someone will bring up the 'children' thing ... But a couple doesn't have to have children to be married ...)

by Lance on Jun 1, 2010 12:16 pm • link • report

*loving bonds

by Lance on Jun 1, 2010 12:31 pm • link • report

Re: the wire bill ... One more step in ensuring that we don't get a full 37 mile system ... just a single line 'going from nowhere to nowhere' ...

How many of us hoping to see a city wide system really think there'll be any push for a city wide system by CM Wells and Mayor fenty after the next election --- in which they are both running for re-election --- is said and done?

by Lance on Jun 1, 2010 12:40 pm • link • report

Incidentally, the quote 'going from nowhere to nowhere' is CM Evans quote ... as broadcast by the Council's coverage of the informal budget hearings held on 5/19.

I don't know what he was referring to. But I do know that DDOT's request to use Union Station as the western terminus of this line has already been turned down.

by Lance on Jun 1, 2010 12:43 pm • link • report

I actually think that quote was from Barry talking about the Anacostia line.

by David Alpert on Jun 1, 2010 12:44 pm • link • report

@Lance

Where did you see that DDOT's plans for Union Station had already been turned down? That would be news for sure.

by Adam L on Jun 1, 2010 12:46 pm • link • report

@Lance

I'd suggest you look again at the streetcar plans map, and then maybe at a map of Ward 6 - I'd say that Tommy Wells probably has a vested interest in seeing future streetcar lines built out, too - since many of them will be in or adjacent to his Ward.

by Alex B. on Jun 1, 2010 1:04 pm • link • report

"How many of us hoping to see a city wide system really think there'll be any push for a city wide system by CM Wells and Mayor fenty after the next election"

I would guess almost everyone except for you. I certainly do.

by Brian White on Jun 1, 2010 1:12 pm • link • report

In the Netherlands, like in France and probably a bunch more European countries, all marriages are performed by civil servants, often at city halls, although cities are becoming more flexible in the location. Due to the separation between state and church, the government does not recognize what you do in a church as a legal marriage.

Traditionally, people get married twice. Once in church, "before god", and once "for the state", usually on the same day. Currently, as the Netherlands become less religious, people just skip the church one. The cultural shift is causing the city government to beef up the ceremonies. The ceremonies are often very festive and designed by the couple as much as is possible within reason.

by Jasper on Jun 1, 2010 1:21 pm • link • report

Once the H Street streetcar is running every neighborhood in the city will be demanding their own line, just like every jurisdiction demands Metro now. The streetcar plan will take on a life of its own.

by BeyondDC on Jun 1, 2010 1:21 pm • link • report

Laws that legislate exceptions are bad. Why not write a law that allows wires for the sole purpose of streetcars?

by Jasper on Jun 1, 2010 1:29 pm • link • report

The reason was to re-establish the current ban that's in the U.S. Code (predating home rule) as a local law. Instead of a federal law saying no wires and a local law saying yes wires for streetcars, it should be a local law saying no wires except for streetcars.

by David Alpert on Jun 1, 2010 1:33 pm • link • report

Metro began by going from nowhere to nowhere. I believe it began by going from Dupont Circle to Metro Center or something like that.

About three stops.

by Mike on Jun 1, 2010 1:45 pm • link • report

@Jasper

Piggy-backing on David's comment, it's just more politically feasible. A wholesale change to the current-standing federal law might pique the attention of members of Congress. I can see the discussion that would erupt if media organizations (especially national ones) picked up stories about Marion Barry and loony D.C. council (national media outlets almost never fail to point out that Barry is still an elected official) wanting to string wires up and down Pennsylvania Avenue and crisscrossing the Mall.

In addition, there already is an exemption in the law... you can hang wires everywhere but the former City of Washington.

by Adam L on Jun 1, 2010 1:47 pm • link • report

@Mike:
March 27, 1976: Rhode Island Avenue - Farragut North. Gallery Place and New York Avenue were not open at that time. 5 stops.

by Matt Johnson on Jun 1, 2010 1:49 pm • link • report

@Mike,

Metro's initial operating segment was Rhode Island Ave to Farragut North - skipping Gallery Place, as that station wasn't ready yet.

David made a nice slideshow of the evolution.

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post.cgi?id=4835

by Alex B. on Jun 1, 2010 1:51 pm • link • report

Historical details about opening day for the Metro, Mike makes an excellent point about many neighborhoods around the District clamoring for streetcars once H St. opens.

by Cavan on Jun 1, 2010 2:07 pm • link • report

@ David, Adam: So we end up with bad legislation because other politicians might behave badly. And then we end up complaining that legislation is bad. Rightly so, because it is. It's a never ending cycle.

And yes, the media should keep hammering about the fact that Barry is still an elected official. It is an embarrassment.

by Jasper on Jun 1, 2010 2:53 pm • link • report

@Jasper What exactly is bad about the legislation? It seems like a reasonable compromise to me.

by jcm on Jun 1, 2010 4:19 pm • link • report

Whats the next step after the bill is introduced? The Mayor signs it?

by ml on Jun 1, 2010 5:28 pm • link • report

The Committee on Public Works and Transportation has a hearing where anyone can testify. Then they schedule it for a markup and vote it out of committee. Then they have to pass it at 2 legislative sessions with the full Council. The Mayor signs, a few months go by in which Congress could overturn it, and then it's the law..

David

by David Alpert on Jun 1, 2010 5:36 pm • link • report

How were the original streetcars powered? From looking at pictures of the F St and other lines, it does not appear that there were overhead wires.

by Sherry on Jun 2, 2010 11:19 am • link • report

DC used to have an elaborate cable car system powered via several cable stations, like in San Francisco. The cable ran down a central underground track. When the streetcars were first rolled out, they retrofitted the central track with a central electric power line. I recall this idea being floated then promptly shot down for insurance liability issues. You just know some smart kid would shove a crowbar down that power rail.

by monkeyrotica on Jun 2, 2010 11:33 am • link • report

Because it involves federal property (ie the streets), this could end up in litigation for years in end ... or, more likely, resolved by federal action ... like the Pennsylvania bike lane. It's not likely that the legislation will sail through in its present form.

by Lance on Jun 2, 2010 11:38 pm • link • report