What I actually took away from that article is that the Cubs manager is a hard-core Rush fan, which is kind of awesome.

by J on Apr 2, 2011 11:48 am  

Kidical Mass is the most adorable phrase I've heard in months. Sounds like a great event and I hope it's a sign of where the future's heading.

by TM on Apr 2, 2011 11:59 am  

Congrats on the postal designation, Tysons Corner. That's always been something curious. I understand smaller CDPs using a larger CDP's mailing address (for instance, Friendship Village uses a Chevy Chase address) but Tysons Corner is pretty damn big and important.

by Martin on Apr 2, 2011 12:16 pm  

Glad to see in Gray's new city budget he wants to raise the garage tax from 12% to 18%. Never would have happened when Antonelli/Barry ruled.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/politics/dc-mayor-unveils-big-program-cuts-and-tax-hikes-in-first-budget-plan/2011/04/01/AFIkqhJC_story.html?hpid=z2

by Tom Coumaris on Apr 2, 2011 12:27 pm  

@J: Maybe in the off-season, he's a priest of the Temple of Syrinx...

by Froggie on Apr 2, 2011 1:02 pm  

Grahm is being disingenuous when he claims that the garage tax hasn't been raised since the '70s. The garage tax is a percentage of the parking fees ... so each time parking fees go up, the tax goes up.

The current 12% tax seems plenty high to begin with. Doesn't the District get property tax on these garages? Why double tax them ... This just leads to higher parking fees which just serves to put this city at a further disadvantage against our competing neighboring cities where parking is usually free ... or at least cheaper than here. And I don't mean to imply that it should be all about tax revenues when I talk about the competition we're in with the neighboring jurisdictions ... I'm talking about the economic health of this city as well as the quality of life for the city's residents. Yes, we can try to pack more and more car-less residents into this city under the simplistic thinking that it'll bring in more tax revenues to solve all our budget problems, but long term it's quality and not quantity that will ensure this city is competitive economically with others and retains a high quality of life. And you don't get that in the 21st century where ease of travel across the vast distances of our modernday metropolices means you can't just be creating a 'car-less' ghetto for a small segment of the population (read: the very rich and the very poor). If we want to span the different demographics of the metropolis of the 21st centurym we have to be on equal footing in terms of ease (and cost) of parking as well as many other issues.

by Lance on Apr 2, 2011 1:15 pm  

@Lance -

You obviously don't like urbanism in many different flavors. If you don't like it, why don't you just move somewhere else? You have stated repeatedly that you prefer the built environment, tax policies, and job growth of places like Reston. You've also said that you commute out there for work. Also, from your bio, I'm pretty sure that you are new to Dupont and used to live in Connecticut. Why not just move closer to work? You don't have roots in the area and obviously don't like it here.

I'm just puzzled when people's stated preferences and revealed preferences don't match.

by J on Apr 2, 2011 1:24 pm  

@Lance: A higher parking tax could lead to higher parking fees, lower parking operator profits, or a combination of both. I would assume that in the short run, both the supplier and the consumer are relatively price-insensitive.

It's clear that DC is surviving even though parking downtown is expensive. Other major cities charge parking taxes as high as proposed.

by Michael Perkins on Apr 2, 2011 2:48 pm  

@j, I think you're confusing my bio with David's. If you're a representative GGW viewpoint, I've likely been in Washington since before you were born, and have contributed in many ways through volunteer activism to what Washington is and where it is going. It is David who is the very recent New England transplant and hasn't figured out YET that Washington need not become another Manhattan for it to offer an A+ urban experience. Apparently, you don't understand that either.

by Lance on Apr 2, 2011 2:49 pm  

The two HPRB appointments seem to be somewhat naive choices. The one may not be qualified to serve under the special designation required to maintain federal funding for the Historic Preservation Office. The other seems to be one of those Capital Hill Conservative Preservationists. The fact she is essentially a party to the mess with the Heritage Foundation isn't helpful, particularly when our congressional overlords will probably be watching these developments closely.

I would have expected more from the Gray Administration. They really need to rethink their approach here.

by William on Apr 2, 2011 4:02 pm  

RE: HPRB nominations. I hear Nancy Metzger is a perfect choice. She understands where this city is supposed to be heading AND had the experience in these matter where she won't need to 'learn on the job'.

by Lance on Apr 2, 2011 4:19 pm  

@ Lance, do tell. Who is whispering to you that Nancy Metzger is the perfect choice? C100? CHRS?

Metzger has volunteered a lot of time to preservation issues and knows a lot, but she is an extremely complicated and complicating choice. She is leading the lawsuit against the city to have an approved addition removed from a Pennsylvania Avenue SE building. She is holding meetings with the Hine developer behind closed doors on behalf of CHRS, and refuses to confess to what changes she has recommended. Will she then rule on those Hine plans she helped design when she is an HPRB member, or recuse herself? She led the CHRS efforts on behalf of ANC-6b in support of the Barney Circle Historic District designation, testified at the critical ANC meeting, then her husband, Norm Metzger, a new-ish ANC member, blandly voted in favor of the CHRS/ANC HD proposal (a majority of the ANC voted it down). Given their actions on Barney Circle, where the conflict was maximized, that suggests that going forward, there will be many HP issues on Capitol Hill that will suffer the complication of a vote from Norm Metzger at the ANC level sending a recommendation up to Nancy Metzger at HPRB, with neither Norm nor Nancy conceding any conflict nor recusing themselves.

DC and Capitol Hill are small places, and a blanket rule about spousal conflicts would cost us the services of many good people like Norm and Nancy Metzger...but the Metzgers have not been as cognizant of the problem or careful about not exacerbating it as they should have been recently.

The problem for years has been too few people making too many big HP decisions on Capitol Hill. CHRS/Nancy Metzger track record has been secrecy at every turn, not transparency. Is that a model for HP decisionmaking citywide?

by Trulee Pist on Apr 2, 2011 4:43 pm  

@Trulee Pist 'She is leading the lawsuit against the city to have an approved addition removed from a Pennsylvania Avenue SE building.

I've read about this matter and the problem is that it was NOT approved by the Historic Preservation Review Board. In an obvious political play driven by concerns not related to historic preservation, it was the Mayor's Office in the guise of the head of Planning who 'approved' it in decision 180 degrees opposed from all precendent setting decisions for the Capital Hill Historic District where only rear or set back roof additions are allowed. The issue here is a Mayor's Office which chose to make a test case out of this issue by vetoing the Historic Preservation Review Board's decision. The fact that Ms. Metzger is rising to the challenge posed by the former mayor in bringing this test case before the District is a formidable nod toward her qualifications for protecting our historic buildings heritage in this city.

by Lance on Apr 2, 2011 5:01 pm  

and here are the facts:

http://www.chrs.org/Pages/01_227PennAve.html

by Lance on Apr 2, 2011 5:02 pm  

The hypothetical plans for slightly decreasing travel times to IAD, at vast expense, seem wildly infeasible. It's good that people are trying, but mostly this illustrates what a mess we've created with the money spent so far.

by David desJardins on Apr 2, 2011 5:17 pm  

I would suggest that Nancy Metger has vociferously and publicly opposed previous nominees to HPRB who were as much or more qualified than she is, based on nothing more than, well who knows?

But as Trulee Pist notes, her nomination at this time is a very complicating move by the Gray Administration because of her current and previous actions on behalf of herself and the CHRS.

Quite frankly, after having to pull Lorraine Green's nomination, there are many eyes watching these moves, so one would think that the Administration would be properly vetting the nominees and putting the best and safest faces forward. Given Ms. Metzger's situation, I feel like this is a poor choice.

I am sure there are other people on the Committee of 100 list who would be better selections than Ms. Metzger.

Heck, the fact that Lance suggests she is the "perfect" choice is enough to suggest that the Administration needs to reconsider this strongly.

by William on Apr 2, 2011 5:17 pm  

@Lance, excellent point. The Heritage Building case is a test of the Mayor's Agent's ability to overrule HPRB, and under what circumstances. The authority to do so is clearly (or not so clearly?) spelled out in the law, but in this case, the Mayor's Agent's actions may have been high-handed. I'm glad you added that link to CHRS's newsletter.

Does not change my feeling, however, that Nancy Metzger's appointment to HPRB board is not an easy confirmation for the Council to grant. Given CHRS's recent tendency toward secrecy over transparency, and given the lack of effort by two Metzgers to demonstrate a common-sense ability to deal with the appearance of a conflict of interest at the hyper-local ANC level, I'd want to ask: "What does that tell us about how things will go at the citywide level when she is confirmed to HPRB?"

by Trulee Pist on Apr 2, 2011 5:38 pm  

@Trulee Pist, I actually know more about Ms. Metzger from my involvement with the Dupont Circle Conservancy than I do with my involvement with the C100. A former Conservancy President made a good case for our including her in our list of suggestions to the mayor. I didn't know about the secrecy over transparancy ... and had I known I would have brought this up.

by Lance on Apr 2, 2011 6:51 pm  

@Lance: A parking garage tax plus property tax on the garage is double taxation?

I guess sales tax is double taxation if the sale is happening at a store that has property. Same with income tax.

by Tim on Apr 2, 2011 7:54 pm  

@Tim, It's double taxation because you're charging twice for the same thing. I.e. A business owner has a garage built on his property so that he can do the right thing and provide his employees a place to park when they come to work. His property taxes get increased because he built that garage for his employees use. To again tax him for the use of that garage by his employees is double taxation ... i.e. taxing again for the same thing. Totally different from charging sales tax on the sale of an item, etc.

by Lance on Apr 2, 2011 9:17 pm  

@Lance: I.e. A business owner has a garage built on his property so that he can do the right thing and provide his employees a place to park when they come to work.

I think you're making shit up. The parking tax doesn't apply to free parking that employers provide to their employees. 12% of zero equals 18% of zero equals zero. The parking tax is a tax on companies that are in the business of providing parking. They pay property tax on their structure and they also pay a percentage of revenues as a tax on the activity. It's no different from a hotel owner who pays property tax on the building and also an occupancy tax on the room charges.

by David desJardins on Apr 2, 2011 9:28 pm  

DC should annex Tysons so that everyone is happy. Tysons gets to be part of a city, and DC gets some of its land back (but not necessarily the same land, just land).

by JJJJJ on Apr 2, 2011 9:45 pm  

@David d, In those cases where the employer is renting (ie most cases), the double taxation gets passed on to the employer in the form of higher taxes.

by Lance on Apr 2, 2011 10:13 pm  

So, Lance, your story about the tax burden on hapless employer who builds and provides parking for his employees was, in fact, entirely wrong?

You have a strange way of admitting your mistakes. Maybe there are just too many and you have become jaded.

by David desJardins on Apr 2, 2011 10:26 pm  

UDC is not in Tenleytown!

by thedofc on Apr 2, 2011 10:39 pm  

No, it's just that the current tax law encourages building, selling, and then renting back. I'm getting the feeling that you don't understand the business environment ... or basic ecomonics. But that's alright . The bottom line is that you need to understand that ultimately there's no free ride. Double taxation gets passed,on ... and that makes DC less competitive via a vis its neighbors who do not overtax. And that gets compounded further when you realize that the overtaxing is meant to pay people to be non-productive.

by Lance on Apr 2, 2011 10:46 pm  

Unbelievable. I have a friend who was at a briefing once. The person giving the presentation was asked about his source for a particular claim and was referred to a paper by a prominent researcher. It turned out that that researcher was IN THE ROOM and flatly contradicted the claim. Was he cowed? Not at all. He pressed on as if nothing had happened.

But Lance could give him lessons.

by David desJardins on Apr 2, 2011 11:37 pm  

@David desJ, LOL ... so, you're the expert and I should be taking what you say as God's word ... and just accepting it. yeah right ...

Btw, how long have you lived in the DC Metro area? DO you live in the DC Metro area ... or 3,000 miles away in CA? If so, than you're giving credence to a complaint about this blog I've heard often from others, namely that people with no 'skin in the game' are trying to influence our politics here. And if what I've researched is correct (and you see I can do research too), it's even more onerous given that your connection to the conversation is as a 'friend/former co-worker' of David A's. You could hardly be considered part of 'the pulse' of what this city wants and needs. You really ought to preface all your comments on here with 'I do not live in the DC area and do not represent what the people of Washington and surrounding areas want, and further will suffer no ill consequence when my text book 'smart growth' theories fail"

by Lance on Apr 3, 2011 8:51 am  

I would suggest that if people stop responding to Lance at all instead of validating his bizarre comments, you might not only relieve those of us who came here to read interesting intelligent dialogue, but also quash his unhealthy obsession with this blog. I love opposing views, but not when the person is obviously unhinged and obsessive and pollutes an otherwise intellectual discussion of real urban issues, not what it could be like to go back to 1970 when it was so much better and people with Lance's sensibilities were making the decisions.

by Bunsifsteel on Apr 3, 2011 9:39 am  

Lance: You know that it's against our policies to try to attack or undermine another person's right to voice opinions on issues on this blog because of where they live, how long they have lived here, what their job is, or any other factors. Please confine yourself to a discussion of the issues.

I'd also note that the earlier comments criticizing Lance for wanting to stay in DC are toeing the line as well.

by David Alpert on Apr 3, 2011 10:15 am  

@ ad hominem attacks on Lance,

Spirited debate is great. Lance disagrees with many (though certainly not all) common GGW viewpoints. But anyone who's visited GGW often over the years will appreciate that he's genuine with his beliefs. He also represents the viewpoints, right or wrong, of many, many civic-minded others in the region, particularly those of his generation.

Characterizing him as a troll or some marginally more diplomatic version of one isn't just unfair, but, I believe, hurts this site's cause. If GGW is merely preaching to the choir and actively scares away readers from proffering honest, but different (whether misguided or not) views, what's the point of the site?

by Joey on Apr 3, 2011 12:28 pm  

(My point would go for other ad hominem statements hurled in the other direction as well, of course, but it seems Lance is a frequent target, even if he also falls into the trap sometimes. His comments are a view into C100, etc. thinking, and I'd be disappointed to lose hearing them aired.)

by Joey on Apr 3, 2011 12:33 pm  

@Joey: But anyone who's visited GGW often over the years will appreciate that he's genuine with his beliefs.

I don't think so. Often, if not always, he's simply saying things he can't possibly believe, in order to provoke arguments.

He also commonly makes factually wrong statements and won't accept or acknowledge the objective truth. Like the exchange above.

by David desJardins on Apr 3, 2011 2:34 pm