@Moco

The county is in the liquor and beer business becasue it makes money. Any store that sells beer has to buy directly from the county first. If you live in MoCo you probly have noticed beer costs more then it does in other counties, thats becasue the county has a huge markup on their costs. I have heard as high as 30%

Opening on Sunday is fine, but I am not sure it will bring in any more revenue. People just will not buy on Monday instead.

by Matt R on Nov 11, 2010 9:23 am • link • report

why is the county in the liquor business anyway

Hmm, I think I know.

The Department of Liquor Control is not tax-supported and has returned about $200 million to the county's general fund over the past decade from profits earned through the sale of alcohol, Griffin said. In fiscal 2011 the department will return $27 million to the general fund.

Let me know if you have any other easy questions. :)

by jcm on Nov 11, 2010 9:31 am • link • report

That story about Jack Evans reminded me of a time last year when I went to catch my P6 bus at 5th and New York, across from the Safeway, and his car was illegally parked at the bus stop (I took photos as well). Then to make matters worse a huge firetruck pulled up behind Evans' car, which made it almost impossible to see down New York Ave for the coming bus (this was also before NextBus time). Naturally, the P6 swung around the corner and flew right by the stop. Thanks for nothing, Jack.

by Shipsa01 on Nov 11, 2010 9:40 am • link • report

Jack Evans should be parking legally, but that report is BS. Here's a hint, freedc, if an unexpected object in the right lane is enough to cause you to crash then you are out of control. Slow down. You're riding in a city, not a velodrome.

by jcm on Nov 11, 2010 9:46 am • link • report

A reader happened across an illegally parked car in the right lane during rush hour yesterday. Pretty typical occurrence, except the car belonged to Ward 2 Councilmember Jack Evans.

He may not have been illegally parked. Some time back, Council extended to themselves a right which members of Congress have held forever ... That right is an exemption from most "No Parking" zones. They also extended that right to other elected DC officials (e.g., ANC commissioners). A permit needs to be displayed in the windows by the ANC commissioners ... But I don't think Council needs to do that since they have Council plates on their cars.

by Lance on Nov 11, 2010 9:54 am • link • report

By Amy Doolittle

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

April 26, 2006

The 535 members of Congress can do it. So can the 13 members of the D.C. Council. So can Mayor Anthony A. Williams.

So can the city's 271 Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC)members, the Metropolitan Police Department officers who drive marked or unmarked cars and almost anyone who drives federal vehicles, city parking officials say. But ordinary taxpayers can't do it.

This elite group of drivers can park anywhere in the District when they're on "official business," and not get a ticket or risk getting their vehicle towed. And some drivers think they can park anywhere they want without

paying a penalty. Officials say some clergymen merely place homemade signs on their dashboards identifying them as "church officials." It often works. Some churchgoers double-park around their places of worship on Sundays.

Double-parking is illegal in the District and carries a $50 fine, but this is not enforced at some churches.

Current Event Article

The double-parking has left residents, churches and city officials at odds over the enforcement of D.C. parking laws. Mr. Williams last week postponed double-parking enforcement around churches until at least late August.

!!!!The District, which has about 4,000 curbside parking spaces, officially exempts high-ranking city officials from certain parking restrictions only when those officials are on "official business." But that rule is generously defined and nearly impossible to enforce,

parking officials say. To enforce the "official business" rule, an officer would have to find the owner of the vehicle and ask them what they were doing and

whether the purpose was "official," says Mary Myers, a spokeswoman for the D.C. Department of Public Works. "We trust that they are on official business," she says.

Members of Congress granted themselves special parking privileges in 1925. This allows members of Congress to park at red meters, within 45 feet of an intersection, in bus zones, in residential parking permit areas and in business intersections -- infractions that would cost a D.C. resident a total of $165 in tickets.

Police, who has the evidence now have begun double-ticketing ordinary citizens for the same offense -- someone who parks in a No Parking zone, for example, can get a ticket for parking there, and another ticket for "failing to obey a lawful sign."

The D.C. Council voted to exempt itself from the same parking restrictions in 2002. Kevin Morison, a spokesman for Metropolitan Police Department, says tickets can be issued to marked and unmarked police cars; officers are allowed to park illegally only when they are responding to an emergency, he says. Mr. Morison says officers likely park illegally when they are not on official business, but he concedes that enforcing the law is all but impossible.

ANC members are similarly exempt from residential permit and parking meter regulations, a privilege routinely abused. Dee Hunter, chairman of ANC 1B, says he uses his "Advisory Neighborhood Commission, on official business" placard anytime he Current Event Article

parks his car. He uses it to park illegally outside his church in Northwest. "I use it anytime I park anywhere," Mr. Hunter told The Washington Times on Sunday. "I go to church. I parked there with it this morning." But he told The Times yesterday that although he keeps the permit in

his window at all times he only parks illegally when on ANC business. Miss Myers says the signs that identify them as "church officials" do not exempt them from parking laws. "I have seen homemade things that are in their windshields. But no, we do not honor those."

by Lance on Nov 11, 2010 10:28 am • link • report

Now the question begs ... Did that cyclist who was complaining about CM Evans' LEGAL parking obey the traffic signal directly past where the car was parked?

by Lance on Nov 11, 2010 10:31 am • link • report

@Erik, Since the CM was legally parked, maybe you need to change the entire wording of

How not to set a good example: A reader happened across an illegally parked car in the right lane during rush hour yesterday. Pretty typical occurrence, except the car belonged to Ward 2 Councilmember Jack Evans. (MyBikeLane)

to

Confused cyclist with sense of entitlement complains of being incovenienced by Ward 2 Councilmember Jack Evans' legally parked car.

by Lance on Nov 11, 2010 10:35 am • link • report

I dare you ... Or does that not fit the biased and one-sided agended we often see displayed in GGW's headlines?

by Lance on Nov 11, 2010 10:36 am • link • report

I don't think the 9th amendment on the Cyclist's Bill of Rights will immediately apply to the MARC train, since this only effects the City of Baltimore. Although I hope it does serve as a catlyst for bikes on MARC.

by Chris on Nov 11, 2010 10:42 am • link • report

Still waiting for the factually incorrect post about Evans's car to be corrected. For a blog that calls out every other media outlet almost every day for perceived errors, this is pretty weak sauce.

by Anon on Nov 11, 2010 10:54 am • link • report

IDK Lance. Having to rely on a 4.5 year old article from the Washington Times (not the most widely read local paper) to know about obscure exemptions from parking regulations for an "elite group" (the authors characterization) seems like expecting too much from the average person.

Also the tone of the article is that these exemptions are an abuse of power by the people who wrote the legislation to give to benefit themselves over "ordinary taxpayers" (again the authors language). Not exactly a good example if you're trying to play "gotcha!" with "whose sense of entitlement is worst?".

by Tina on Nov 11, 2010 10:58 am • link • report

^...the legislation to benefit themselves...^

by Tina on Nov 11, 2010 11:03 am • link • report

Just like with Maryland in general, MoCo seems to be in the business of denying the big picture. Imagine how much Maryland would make if they allowed wine by mail and if they allowed beer and wine sales in supermarkets. When I lived in Silver Spring, I knew a lot of people who'd rather go to DC to buy alcohol than stay in county though in all honesty hard liquor is cheaper in MoCo than in DC.

The strong county system of Maryland often seems way too strong and the post-Prohibition decision to give alcohol control to the counties (which leads to the MoCo anomaly which no longer can be duplicated) is one of these examples.

by Jason on Nov 11, 2010 11:21 am • link • report

@Tina,

Ever hear the saying:

Ignorance of the law is not a defense.

Yes, we understand a lot of cyclists are indeed ignorant as to the rights and responsibilities of others on our roads, as well as, apparently, their own rights and responsbilities, but that is not an excuse for this blog (or the originating one) to perpetuate non-factual accusations after they've been pointed out to them.

Nor is it an excuse for the cyclist to feel a sense of entitlement that is unsubstantiated by the facts. The other day I witnessed a cyclists berating a driver who was in the right hand turn lane (where a bike lane goes to dotted lines) as that driver was making a right hand turn. The sense of entitlement from this cyclist who was clearly in the wrong (from what I've learned on this very blog) was astonishing!

by Lance on Nov 11, 2010 11:42 am • link • report

Lance,

I appreciate bringing the error to my attention. You'll notice in the original link that I made no reference to the "inconvenience" which freedc whines about. In fact, I agree that the tone of the post is far too entitled, which is why I chose to ignore it, and rather highlight what I think, and what the article you dredged up from the bowels of the Washington Times archives seems to assert, is a pretty egregious abuse of power, and, as I said in the title, sets a terrible example for the city.

Erik

by Erik Weber on Nov 11, 2010 11:52 am • link • report

Re: Fairfax County -- Why does diversity need to be forced?

Can someone please answer that question?

by Peter on Nov 11, 2010 11:54 am • link • report

@Lance -um no, I fell off a turnip truck just yesterday and thus have never heard that pithy saying! Thanks!

I can't help notice you didn't address at all the purpose of the WT article, which seems pretty clearly a reporting on abuse of power among law makers regarding parking law exemptions among "the elite" as well as other lack-of-parking-law enforcement issues. Again, its just not a good example when your purpose is to show how "entitled" you think someone among the "ordinary taxpayers" are compared to this group.

Yeah the biker you saw was ignorant of the law. Shall we all write in with the examples we see each day of drivers failing to yield to pedestrians? You're anecdote is meaningless in this "competition".

by Tina on Nov 11, 2010 11:54 am • link • report

"At 46 percent, Asians also are the most common ethnicity at Jefferson. "

I like the race baiting in the article lead-in. Why not mention that in the summary?

by Angela on Nov 11, 2010 12:00 pm • link • report

The WP missed the target on their TJ story about diversity. The story should have talked about whether or not economically disadvantaged students (of any race) have different (better or worse) admissions rates and representation. A person of any given race might or might not be poor and disadvantaged, so race is the wrong metric.

The metric of "qualifies for a free school lunch" is broadly accepted for "economically disadvantaged", and that is something that any school tracks (at least for lunchroom accounting reasons), so the data on how many students at TJ are disadvantaged is available. One wonders why the WP reporters did not look at that. I have no idea what the answer would be to that question, but that would be the right question to ask.

(For the record, lots of Asians/Asian-Americans in Northern VA are in fact economically disadvantaged, as also are lots of European-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, and African-Americans.)

by anonymous coward on Nov 11, 2010 12:13 pm • link • report

Students are selected for TJHSST through a competitive admissions process. We are looking for highly motivated students with diverse backgrounds, talents, and skills, who demonstrate:

High ability, aptitude, and interest in math, science, and technology.
Intellectual curiosity and self-motivation to pursue scientific research.
A desire to be challenged with an extensive curriculum focused in math, science, and technology.
The highest academic and personal integrity.
An aspiration to become a member of a community of learners, explorers, mentors, and leaders.
The capability to become citizens and leaders of the 21st century.

by TJHSST on Nov 11, 2010 12:25 pm • link • report

As of last year 2.2% of TJ students were eligible for free/reduced lunches. The only Fairfax County HS with less was Langley.

by alexandrian on Nov 11, 2010 12:28 pm • link • report

We don't know if Jack Evans was legally or illegally parked because we don't know if he was on official business.

He's parked in a non-legal space. Now, he may have a justification or an exemption, but let's not assume that he does .

by Ah on Nov 11, 2010 12:53 pm • link • report

H Street street car news:

www.dcwatch.com/themail/2010/10-11-10.htm#diop

Negative Ramifications of H Street, NE, Construction
Bachir Diop, keurkanni@hotmail.com, Anwar Saleem, anwar.saleem@hstreet.org, Pamela Johnson, pam@wethepeople.org

Businesses along the H Street NE corridor are being strangled from four years of disruptive street and roadwork for the streetcar project. CustomersÂ’ access has been limited due to the steady opening and closing of pavements on H Street, NE, along with blockades and barricades, parking restrictions, and the clutter of heavy duty construction equipments. The reduced customer base has caused revenue loss while property assessments and taxes have risen more than 200 percent. In addition to the untenable predicament imposed by DC government on H Street small businesses, which are operating in an bleak economic environment, DCÂ’s Office of Tax and Revenue (OTR) has rendered a coup de grace by auctioning 27 H Street, NE, properties at its September 20 tax sale.

The government of the District of Columbia’s practice of promptly auctioning H Street NE properties with outstanding tax liens that are as little as $178.16 is predatory, especially when neither the mayor nor the city council has implemented any supportive measures to assist businesses and property owners during the imposed construction chaos. Although the government of the District of Columbia has generously given ten- to twenty-year tax abatements to wealthy developers — such as Donatelli and Klein, the Neighborhood Development Corporation, and Jeff Blum and David Franco — distressed businesses along the H Street, NE, corridor were only approved for a limited tax deferment that ended on September 15. This haphazard tax legislation introduced by Councilmember Tommy Wells did not address the negative impact that the construction has and continues to have on H Street, NE, small businesses. The deferred and current property taxes became due in full in September, while construction and its myriad of nefast consequences continue to plague small businesses along the H Street, NE, corridor. The limited tax deferment for small businesses on H Street, NE, only delayed the pain and, in many cases, expedited the auctioning of H Street, NE, real properties at OTR’s tax sale. Well-established businesses that have invested in the revitalization of H Street, NE, are now being threatened with foreclosure by OTR.

For the last two years businesses along H Street, NE, corridor have expressed to Wells’ office their need for urgent relief, but there hasn’t been any substantial or sustainable assistance. Wells’ office told H Street, NE, property owners that OTR denied the recent request for an additional tax deferment. Those owners were also informed by Councilmember Graham’s office that the city council recently passed legislation in the amount of three million dollars for the Streetscape Survival Fund. The Fund is to provide support in FY11 for small businesses affected by construction for a streetscape improvement project. According to the legislation, the DC Department of Transportation (DDOT) is responsible for managing the Fund. But DDOT Director Gabe Klein disagrees. Klein on Sept. 28 responded to an E-mail request regarding the Streetscape Survival Fund by saying, “I am not aware of any finalized rules in place for the disbursal of these funds, or that DDOT would be the agency deciding who would receive funds as this is not our expertise; we work in transportation and infrastructure. We have suggested that the council look to DMPED, OTR or [an]other agency with a mission aligned with the Streetscape Survival Funds’ purpose.” [Finished online at http://www.dcwatch.com/themail/2010/10-11-10.htm#diop]

There seems to be a disconnect or miscommunication amongst DC agencies and the city council regarding the disbursement of funds for the Streetscape Survival Fund. H Street, NE, small businesses canÂ’t afford to idly wait for DDOT to decide whether the Streetscape Survival Fund is within its purview while businesses are closing and buildings are being auctioned to the highest bidder via OTRÂ’s tax sales. H Street, NE, businesses and property owners need the district government to provide retroactive tax relief immediately and to place a moratorium on property tax sales during the construction phase of the Streetcar Project.

Several requests for assistance have been sent to the mayor and city council and, to date, there has not been a positive response. If actions are not taken to remedy this inequity holistically by providing immediate tax relief and retroactively canceling the property tax sales before court foreclosures take effect, the district government will have effectively accelerated the gentrification process of the H Street, NE, corridor and the closing of many small businesses that are the economic engines of this city.

by Lance on Nov 11, 2010 1:21 pm • link • report

@TJHSST:

What percentage of your students come from Longfellow Middle School (located in McLean, where many, many parents pay tutors to prepare their children specifically for the TJ exam?

Isn't Longfellow the number one middle school BY FAR of your students?

Those parents are anything but economically disadvantaged.

They know what they want and will pay to get it. And they do.

by mch on Nov 11, 2010 1:47 pm • link • report

@ah -- whether or not it was official business, he probably picked the worst spot to park.

He's in a no parking or stopping anytime area. The reason is its near the crosswalk and thus, blocking the line of sight for both drivers and pedestrians.

by dcparking on Nov 11, 2010 1:50 pm • link • report

@Lance,

You claimed that "CM was legally parked." Can you tell me statutory provision you relied on for that statement? Based on the photo, it appears that the CM violated a number of parking laws, including (if the original poster in fact took the photo during rush hour) parking in a "no parking during rush hour" spot.

I haven't had the chance to run many searches and did not even know about these exemptions until you posted the article from 2006, but I found a provision in the DC Code that creates limited exemptions to the parking laws for CM's and members of Congress:

(c) Members of Congress or Council may Search Term Begin park their vehicles in any available curb space in the District of Columbia, when:
(1) The vehicle is used by the member of Congress or the Search Term on official business;

(2) The vehicle is displaying a Congressional or Search Term Begin Council Search Term End registration issued by the jurisdiction represented by the member; and

(3) The vehicle is not parked in violation of a loading zone, rush hour, firehouse, or fire plug limitation.

DC ST § 50-2201.03(c).

However, it appears that CM cannot claim to use that exemption, because it appears that he was parked in violation of a rush hour limition.

There may be other exemptions that I am not aware of. What did you base your claim on? Thanks.

by Todd on Nov 11, 2010 2:18 pm • link • report

@Erik,

Well ... I see you made a change, but you're still missing the gist of it ...

The issue is that the cyclist knew about his own exemption allowing him to be on pavement that is otherwise built for and reserved for motor vehicles (and paid for via taxes on motor vehicles), but he was blissfully (and conveniently) ignorant of the CM's exemption ...

I still think this would make a better caption:

"Confused cyclist with sense of entitlement complains of being incovenienced by Ward 2 Councilmember Jack Evans' legally parked car."

I dare you to use it ...

by Lance on Nov 11, 2010 2:39 pm • link • report

I hesitate to respond to something from the mail, which is unbelievably out of touch beyond the small community of "real stakeholders." So, we should never improve our infrastructure? How would businesses on H Street fare if we simply allowed water mains, sewer mains, gas lines and electric conduits to crumble? H Street construction is about a lot more than the streetcar: they are completely rebuilding the street, including all utilities. The streetcar tracks are a small part of the overall project.

As for defending Evans. Seriously?!? Even if he was not breaking the law (based on the language of the DC Code he was breaking the law by violating a rush hour restriction), he was inconveniencing more than just one bicyclist. I know you love motorists and hate bicyclists and pedestrians, but he was inconveniencing other motorists much more than he was any bicyclists. Trust me, it's pretty easy to go around an illegally parked car on a bicycle, regardless of whether you obey subsequent traffic signals (nice straw man!).

Well, I'm off to create congestion by walking to the office..........

by rg on Nov 11, 2010 2:43 pm • link • report

@Todd,

Take another look at that picture. (Blow it up if you have to.) The arrow for the rush hour restriction is pointing away from the back of Jack's car. He is quite LEGALLY parked in a simple 'No Standing or Parking Anytime' zone ... for which he has an exemption ...

by Lance on Nov 11, 2010 2:44 pm • link • report

@rg So, we should never improve our infrastructure? How would businesses on H Street fare if we simply allowed water mains, sewer mains, gas lines and electric conduits to crumble?

That's not the part of that article worth reading. It's the part where Well's developer buddies have been given massive tax write-offs to (a) withstand the storm of rebuilding the street (which involves more iterations of activities because of the track laying) and (b) buy at firesale prices the properties of the existing small merchants who've been sold the bill of goods that they'll somehow actually benefit from these improvements ... minus any help from the CM who apparently doesn't see a reason to help them ...

by Lance on Nov 11, 2010 2:49 pm • link • report

btw ... Todd ... let me guess ... given the difficulty you apparently have in understanding what our road signs are saying ... Are you a regular bicyclist? (You know 'Stop' means 'look straight ahead, pedal harder, and pretend know one is sitting waiting their turn at a stop sign on the crossroad'.)

;)

by Lance on Nov 11, 2010 2:53 pm • link • report

Also, it is a fallacy that the gas tax and other motor vehicle taxes cover the cost of building and maintaining roads. They do not even cover half of the actual costs (never mind the costs of air pollution, noise pollution and dependence on foreign oil that are borne by all of us, regardless of whether we are motorists). The remainder of the actual costs are borne by general income, property and sales tax payers. So, as I am fully paid up on my DC property, income and sales taxes, I think I will BIKE to the office so that I can use the streets that my taxes have paid for...........................

I like the fact that every time I walk or bike somewhere, it really bothers the "real stakeholders."

by rg on Nov 11, 2010 2:56 pm • link • report

As people have repeatedly pointed out, all this disruption isn't from the streetcar tracks. It's from the streetscape project. H Street was getting a major streetscape redo. It was going to involve all that tearing up of the street and disruption to businesses regardless.

DDOT and Wells simply decided to add the tracks while they were already tearing up the street. The tracks didn't create the disruption on their own.

18th Street has been disrupted for some time. When I drive it's been hard to get in and out of my alley. Should I blame this on the streetcar too, even though no streetcar will go there?

All the stuff you cited were attempts to help businesses weather the storm of the streetscape, not the streetcar. In Dupont there was significant discussion about impacts on 17th Street as well when that was being planned and going on. You can debate whether those measures are a good idea or not, but they have nothing to do with the streetcar.

by David Alpert on Nov 11, 2010 2:56 pm • link • report

If Wells is such a corrupt monster, why didn't the "real stakeholders" take him out in the last election? You might dislike him, but based on election results and the way he is greeted in the community, he is pretty popular with his constituents. If you or the reactionaries who write for the mail were to run against him on your "cars are wonderful, bicyclists and pedestrians should be locked up, DC residents under 60 who have lived here less than 40 years are evil and should keep quiet and investments in transit rob motorists" platform, I think you would fare pretty poorly.

Prediction: the new parking regulations will be approved and the streetcar system will be be popular and successful despite the howls of protest from the mail and the Committee of 100.

Speaking of the mail, when did they design their website? 1996? No wonder nobody reads it anymore.

by rg on Nov 11, 2010 3:05 pm • link • report

@Lance - where to start?

Can you point me to the Code section that provides that roads are "reserved for motor vehicles?" While you're at it, can you point me to the DC code provisions which provide for the "exemption [for a cyclist] allowing him to be on pavement?"

Are you seriously arguing that the rush hour restriction doesn't apply to that spot because it is always a no-parking spot? That somehow the fact the the spot is generally no parking somehow makes it OK to park there during rush hour, when he's not permitted to park on the rest of the street? Good grief.

There is no way to tell from the photo if Evans was on official business. Accordingly, there simply is no basis for your unequivovcal statement that "he is quite LEGALLY parked."

As an aside, the car also appears to be more than 2 feet from the curb - I believe that's also a violation, and the exception cited above doesn't to appear to cover it.

by dcd on Nov 11, 2010 3:09 pm • link • report

@ Lance, This is really what you think? ...the cyclist knew about his own exemption allowing him to be on pavement that is otherwise built for and reserved for motor vehicles (and paid for via taxes on motor vehicles)...

Disregarding (the rather extreme sentiment IMHO) of that statement, how do you know the cyclist isn't among those who owns a motor vehicle and pays taxes on it?

by Tina on Nov 11, 2010 3:10 pm • link • report

@David

--> Businesses along the H Street NE corridor are being strangled from four years of disruptive street and roadwork for the streetcar project. Customers’ access has been limited due to the steady opening and closing of pavements on H Street, NE, along with blockades and barricades, parking restrictions, and the clutter of heavy duty construction equipments.

18th Street is being similarly reconstructed, but it's not taking 4 years ... but only 1 ... because it doesn't have the extra effort involved to install tracks. But in any case, the issue here is that like the streetcar improvement, the tax exemption benefits seem to be very narrowly focused in regards to who is benefitting from them ... At least that's what I took away from the article. Just like the Streetcar will be paid for by the B.A.D. assessment tax which will be disproportionately borne by those small business and residents and landlords who aren't getting the tax breaks mentioned in the article.

by Lance on Nov 11, 2010 3:38 pm • link • report

@Lance,

I'm pretty sure that the "rush hour" zones are defined by blocks and not by posted signs. See, for example, DC Mun Regs t. 18 s. 4038 & DC Mun Regs t. 18 s. 2000.6. Accordingly, I don't think that it matters where the sign points.

Do you know for certain that is not the case? It might not be. I'm no expert in this area, I just poked around the statutes and regulations.

By the way, the name-calling really does not help answer my questions. I was genuinely curious about your claim that CM was totally in the right, but now I think that you might be wrong.

by Todd on Nov 11, 2010 3:52 pm • link • report

MTA (who owns MARC) is part of MDOT, a state department. Baltimore City has little effect on it. The best you can do is call for Maryland to:

1. Pick up the bill of rights.
2. Find a way to fund improvements to MARC capacity.

#2 is important for one reason: There's no room for the bikes since there all taken up by *PEOPLE*.

by Drake Perth on Nov 11, 2010 4:43 pm • link • report

students come from Longfellow Middle School...where many, many parents pay tutors

What statistics back this statement up? What percentage of students admitted were tutored?

by TJHSST on Nov 11, 2010 4:48 pm • link • report

@Todd:
Thanks for the digging, I'm intrigued by this issue now, I've asked Aaron Morissey over at DCist if he has any more info on the 2002 legislation he refers to.

@Lance:
Based on Todd's new information, you'll notice I've updated the link again, to reflect that CM Evans may indeed have been parked illegally. Your other point about changing the headline completely ignores what I said in my first follow-up comment: the over-entitled tone of the post is completely irrelevant to my point.

Then again, if you double-dog dare me, I might be willing to change it. ;-)

by Erik Weber on Nov 11, 2010 5:14 pm • link • report

ANC Commissioners are permitted to park in legal parking spaces without cost while on, and only while on, official business. They are also permited to park in "Official Government Vehicle", again only whle on official business.

I parked, while testifying before the Council, in an "Official Government Vehicle" spot, but Had to pay the $100 ticket I incurred when I inadvertantly stayed after rush hour prohibitions came into effect.

It's useful when you have to attend a hearing or other meeting, but it doesn't exempt a Commissioner from any parking requirement except meter costs - and again only while on official business.

David Holmes
Commissioner, ANC 6A

by David Holmes on Nov 11, 2010 9:43 pm • link • report

Since David wants us to test using new mobile URL, I will take the opportunity to double dare you .

;)

by Lance on Nov 11, 2010 11:44 pm • link • report

@Erik, I'd suspect we've slipped into 'practical vs. theoretical' when the signage differs from the code. I'd bet that the parking enforcement folks don't read the code, but do read the signs ... And I'd further bet that the Councilmembers never get a ticket when parked in the 'non-arrowed' parts of rush hour blocks. So, which is correct? ... the theory or the application?

It's almost like stop signs and cyclists ... Does it really matter if a cyclist actually comes to a complete stop or not if the sign at least acts as a prompt to 'look' and to 'to yield' in the case where others may have a right of way. (I.e., the Idaho Stop)

by Lance on Nov 12, 2010 12:15 am • link • report

@TJHSST:

I don't have the statistics of how many students are tutored, as it doesn't exist.

But I do teach in this community, and I interact with these young people who tell me about their lives. They tell me that they go to these classes.

Second, I'm asking YOU for the number of Longfellow students admitted. McLean High School loses between 70-125 students per year to TJ. That's ONE high school.

It is anecdotal, but if it quacks like a duck...

by mch on Nov 12, 2010 5:12 am • link • report

Erik:

Your Tweet also reads, "Jack Evans Lawbreaking." This should be changed, as no law was broken.

by Rick Mangus on Nov 12, 2010 8:30 am • link • report