DC Council - Greater Greater Washington

Primary will stay a joke

Tue, 18 Jun 2013 08:53:00 EDT

Muriel Bowser, David Catania, and Mary Cheh aren't willing to move the 2014 primary later than April 1. That date keeps the voting out of budget season, but could mean 9-month lame ducks if someone loses a reelection bid. (Post)

Comment

Food trucks get compromise

Tue, 18 Jun 2013 08:53:00 EDT

by David Alpert

The DC Council may have reached a compromise on food truck regulations, which would still create defined vending zones, but let trucks operate more freely near the zones, and along narrower sidewalks. (WBJ)

Comment

Is the council too powerful?

Mon, 17 Jun 2013 08:51:00 EDT

by David Alpert

US Attorney Ron Machen thinks the DC Council needs to curb its influence over things that invite bribery, but several councilmembers say it's just the same as everyday "constituent service." (Post)

Comment

Catania's reforms, part 2: Ending "social promotion"

Wed, 12 Jun 2013 13:16:00 EDT

by Rahul Mereand-Sinha

Image from PERDaily.

Last week, Councilmember David Catania announced 7 proposals to restructure operations at DC Public Schools (DCPS). Yesterday we looked at a bill that would give some schools extra money, and school principals control over their budgets. Another bill would discourage the practice of "social promotion."

Brown is guilty

Tue, 11 Jun 2013 08:50:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Former DC Councilmember Michael Brown pled guilty to accepting $50,000 in bribes, and will cooperate with investigations into moneyman Jeffrey Thompson. The FBI sting started when Brown asked an unnamed person to help him get money from contractors. (Post)

Comment

Be careful accepting gifts

Fri, 07 Jun 2013 08:30:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

Former Councilmember Michael Brown will plead guilty to federal bribery charges that he accepted improper personal loans from undercover agents posing as small businessmen who wanted lobbying help. Meanwhile, Marion Barry may have accepted improper personal gifts from city contractors. (Post)

Comment

Can DC decouple growth and "parking pressures"?

Thu, 06 Jun 2013 11:40:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Councilmember Tommy Wells re-introduced legislation this week to let a developer of a new building promise that tenants can't get stickers to park on neighborhood streets, if they choose to offer such a guarantee to neighbors. Would this alleviate the parking angst that erupts over nearly every development project, like ongoing controversies in Columbia Heights and Mount Pleasant?

Harvard Street in Columbia Heights. Photo by Kent Boese.

In Tenleytown, the local Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) supported a new building with no underground parking last year, on the condition that new residents not be able to get residential parking stickers. That was fine with developer Douglas Jemal, but government agencies may not enforce this provision, leaving it entirely to the private agreement between Douglas Development and the ANC.

Neighborhood opposition to growth often revolves around traffic and parking. Even if a developer wants to market a new building to car-free and car-lite new residents, people worry that residents will bring cars anyway and park them on the street.

Building underground parking isn't a solution, either, because some people will still park on the street to save the monthly garage fee, and that underground parking means a lot of cars which add to traffic.

Just look at this message on PoPville's forum, from a resident in Columbia Heights. Some people have been double parking on Harvard Street, stopping emergency vehicles from getting through. Clearly, people should not double park and ought to get tickets, but the resident then went on to use this case to argue against a parking-free condo project:

The reason I'm asking is that a developer is seeking to build an 8 unit apartment building on Harvard Street, NW and they are asking the board of zoning to waive the parking requirements to have parking for their building. We submitted over 70 signatures and 10 letters of opposition today, but apparently the planning department is planning on supporting this application.
It is my feeling that worsening the parking problem on Harvard street will effectively cut off access to local hospitals for residents in Adams Morgan, Mount Pleasant, and Columbia Heights, and will make it impossible for the fire trucks in Adams Morgan to help out at fires east of 16th street.

It's not possible to solve a double parking problem by ensuring that there are 8 more parking spaces off street. The only solution, as many commenters pointed out, is to ensure that we enforce the double parking rules so that parked cars don't block emergency vehicles. Still, we know that the prospect of more residents makes people worry that parking on the street will get harder.

Meridian Hill Baptist Church. Photo by Mr. T in DC on Flickr.

Not far away, Mount Pleasant ANC Commissioner China Terrell worries about a development project at the former fire-ravaged Meridian Hill Baptist Church:

[The developers] want to build 75 condos in the church (mostly 1-bedroom units), with no on-site parking. Instead, homeowners would have the option of leasing parking spaces at DC USA in Columbia Heights. When this plan was introduced at the May 21 ANC meeting, residents were not supportive for obvious reasons. Increased parking and population pressures? The residents said no, thank you.

DC USA is just about 2 blocks from the church, so actually, parking off-street in that garage is probably a shorter walk than trying to find an on-street space in the neighborhood at busy times, where you might circle for a while and end up as far away.

It's bad policy to require parking in every new building, like the Harvard Street condos and this church, but it's also understandable that residents would worry about the impacts. There's an existing shared resource that's often scarce. People are used to consuming that resource.

One solution is to ensure that new growth doesn't impact the resource. We want new residents, but don't want parking pressure. Just like it doesn't affect neighbors whether a new building has a fitness center or not, or whether there are 2 bathrooms for 2 bedrooms versus just one, Wells' bill could let parking be another issue that's up to the building and its tenants rather than a neighborhood impact.

It ought to be a basic value we all share (though not everyone does) that we want to welcome new people into our neighborhoods. New residents mean more vitality for local businesses, more tax revenue to shore up our city's budget, more people on the street to make neighborhoods safe.

Some people are nervous about treating new residents differently from existing residents. Why should one group of people get to use the public space and not others, they ask? We already give existing residents a break on property taxes, for instance. On the other hand, we shouldn't say that new residents can't use a public park, or send kids to a school, even though sometimes people oppose adding neighbors because they fear those resources will get more crowded as well.

Unlike those, however, driving is just one of several methods of getting around. In a place like Mount Pleasant and Columbia Heights, there are many other alternatives, like Metro, buses, bicycling, and more. Some people still need to drive, but it's very reasonable to internalize that cost. If you want to drive, you will have to rent a place with a parking space, or rent a separate space at DC USA, or otherwise provide for this just as you pay for your bathroom space.

Wells' bill might not eliminate all opposition to growth. People will still also say they don't want to have to look at buildings, or don't want population in general. But trouble parking seems to be the biggest fear residents have from most projects. It doesn't need to be.

114 comments

In the DC Council

Wed, 05 Jun 2013 08:34:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Legislators approved some food truck rules and gave themselves power to amend other, more controversial ones. (DCist) ... Anti-truancy legislation passed, and it'll also be illegal for school staff to cheat on tests. (Post) ... 3 members want to let students ride the buses for free to and from school. (Examiner)

Comment

Will leaders stand up against the death toll?

Sat, 01 Jun 2013 12:15:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Tragically, people are getting killed on District streets, two in one day in February. Experts acknowledge that stopping these deaths is a major challenge. In something of a reversal from decades past, as demographics and living patterns shift, it's also a serious problem in suburban areas such as Montgomery County.

Photo by Hawkins on Flickr.

What is the D.C. Council doing about it? Adding police? Investigating thoroughly? No. In fact, in the budget the council passed this month, Chairman Phil Mendelson dedicated considerable future revenue to ease punishment for those whose dangerous actions put others at risk, while simultaneously restraining the police from expanding enforcement.

I'm not talking about murder and similar violence, though violence in our city is no laughing matter. This problem strikes far closer to home for most of us: distracted driving, speeding, unsafe right turns on red or through crosswalks, red-light running and other forms of unsafe driving.

Continue reading my latest op-ed in the Washington Post.

67 comments

Large retailers may have to pay more

Fri, 31 May 2013 08:46:00 EDT

by Jereme Altendorf

In advance of Walmart stores opening in DC, the council will vote on a bill to require a higher minimum wage for large retailers. It would no longer apply only to stores of 75,000 square feet or more. (Post)

Comment

Food truck rules going down

Fri, 31 May 2013 08:46:00 EDT

by David Alpert

A council committee will vote down proposed food truck regulations this morning. They think a requirement for 10 feet of sidewalk and the proposed lottery for spaces are unfair. (NBC4)

Comment

DC Council makes major policy changes overnight

Thu, 23 May 2013 14:23:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Virginia and Maryland changed their gas taxes this year. Both proposals included weeks or months of debate, including public hearings before the legislature. DC made a similar change yesterday. The total time from the first news story about it to final vote? Less than a day.

Photo by Jenn Durfey on Flickr.

In DC's budget process, the mayor releases a proposed budget. Various council committees hold hearings over a period of weeks on their portions of the budget. Committee chairs then schedule markups, and just before the markups, release a draft of what they plan to change.

If the committee approves the changes, they all go to the council chairman, who then tries to assemble them into a budget. Habitually, the chairman releases his own budget late the night before the council is set to vote on the budget. If unexpected changes come up, that gives little time for residents to contact their councilmembers.

When then-Chairman Gray decided to cut streetcar funding in 2010, for instance, most councilmembers found out that morning. In a very short time, we, other blogs, residents using social media, and others were able to spread the word, which drove 1,000 calls to the chairman's office in just 3 hours. Even so, it wasn't in time to stop the Council from cutting the streetcar program. Instead, after lunch, they had to take a separate vote to restore the funding.

At each phase of the process, new ideas come up, and there is less time to react. There's plenty of opportunity to weigh in on the mayor's budget. But committee chairs don't publicly circulate a draft of the changes they're thinking about before any hearing. Most residents found out, for instance, about Mary Cheh's plan to extend the Circulator to the Cathedral, Howard University, and Waterfront Metro, and pay for it with a fare increase, the night before or day of her committee's vote.

Residents still had time to lobby council to reverse changes, as happened when Muriel Bowser suddenly and unexpectedly sliced funding for a Capitol Riverfront development project in favor of Ward 4 projects. After considerable pushback, Mendelson reversed part of that change yesterday.

But any ideas that come from the chairman have virtually no opportunity for public input. For some changes, those which are changes to the law to support the budget rather than the budget itself, the council has to pass its Budget Support Act twice, so the council could change things on its second reading. Still, that's more difficult; members have already voted for something by that time.

This year, Chairman Phil Mendelson's surprise budget changes went beyond just adding or removing funding for programs. He made some significant policy changes, like the gas tax. Other amendments put new requirements on government agencies' ability to execute programs that already exist. We'll talk about some of those next week.

If the Council restructured the gas tax or made other changes in a standalone bill, there would have to be a hearing, a markup, and two votes. But if the chairman slips a change into the budget the night before the budget vote, it means no hearing, no markup, and virtually no time for residents to weigh in.

Chairman Mendelson is very smart, but he can't think of every implication of a policy. The gas tax switch might be a good idea, but that's not the point. Maybe people have arguments against it that I haven't heard, or Mendelson's staff hasn't heard. Even if it's the right choice, it's dangerous to make even a good move so hastily.

There's a reason the legislative process is supposed to take some time. Residents need an opportunity to see the chairman's final proposal, plus any amendments members plan to introduce, more than a few hours before the vote.

And even a day or two still isn't the right amount for changes that go beyond simply deciding how much money to spend on what programs. Changes like the gas tax shift deserve to at least be part of a committee markup; most likely, changes of such significance ought to happen in standalone bills that get their own hearings and real deliberative thought.

38 comments

And the budget says...

Thu, 23 May 2013 08:36:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

The DC Council passed its budget, including Phil Mendelson's plan to switch to a wholesale gas tax, and restored most of the funding to move a DC Water facility and make room for development at the Capitol Riverfront. (Post)

Comment

DC may change gas tax too

Wed, 22 May 2013 08:53:00 EDT

by David Alpert

The DC Council votes on the budget today. Chairman Phil Mendelson wants to replace the gas tax with a wholesale tax, which will also make the tax grow or shrink as gas prices rise or fall. (Post)

Comment

A shifty shift of funds?

Fri, 10 May 2013 08:24:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

Muriel Bowser and the committee she chairs pulled funding for relocating DC Water to make way for a Capitol Riverfront mixed-use project. Instead, the money will pay for three projects in Bowser's Ward 4. (WBJ)

Comment

Council commitee funds Stead Park upgrades

Thu, 09 May 2013 10:41:00 EDT

by Kishan Putta

Parents from around DC who throng Dupont Circle's Stead Park can rejoice: Yesterday, after months of community advocacy, a DC Council committee voted to fund upgrades that will expand play space, install a jogging track, and better utilize the large playing field.

Photo by afagen on Flickr.

Stead Park has an endowment from the Stead Family, which will help maintain the transformational renovations, but the project requires city funds. Mayor Gray originally included $1.6 million in capital funds in his budget, but not until Fiscal Year 2015, which starts in October of 2014.

Residents asked the Council to approve the funding and move it up to FY 2014. Marion Barry (ward 8), the chairman of the Committee on Workforce and Community Affairs, was very supportive; yesterday, his committee voted 5-0 to put the funding in FY 2014, which will allow the construction happen over the next year.

The committee report says,

While the Committee applauds the Mayor for funding this initiative, the community and advocates of Stead Park are ready now for the much needed project... In order to not slow down the major progress of advocates, the committee recommends that 1.6 million of funding be moved into the FY14 budget so that the project can begin in the next fiscal year.

While playground is packed, field often goes unused

Stead Park, on P Street between 16th and 17th, has some playgrounds for children, a basketball court, and a large playing field. A few wonderful sports teams and after-school programs use the field loyally and lovingly, and know how rare such space is in this part of the city.

However, the field currently doesn't get much use during the rest of the day. It's also in bad shape. Holes and dirt patches mar the surface, and large puddles make it unusable after heavy rain.

Photo by tedeytan on Flickr.

Meanwhile, Stead's extremely popular playground draws parents from Mount Pleasant, Columbia Heights, Adams Morgan, U Street, Shaw, Logan, and Dupont. Friends of Stead Park, whose board I serve on, has been gathering community input since last year. Because the playing field is so underused, many residents without children that we've spoken to didn't even know the acre of greenspace exists behind the playground.

On Sunday, the field hosted a rare community event: a Jewish Music Festival organized by the nearby JCC. But even though the field was bustling, the playground was still very crowded with visitors from all over. Over 20 strollers and dozens of kids and parents were trying not to bump into each other as they crammed among the jungle gyms.

The playground was renovated 6 years ago and is very popular, while the field has sadly been neglected. Many of the parents we spoke to said that while they want to stay in the city and raise their kids here, they worry that there currently is not enough multi-use space or outdoors options for recreation and community building located nearby.

Project will provide fitness, recreation, and entertainment for all ages

With the city assistance, Friends of Stead Park plans to renovate the field with a smoother surface, better drainage, and artificial turf that will hold up better with use. A jogging track with trees and benches around the edge will give people another way to use the field during the day, while it will remain large enough for the organized sports leagues that use it in the evening.

A small part of the field space will become a kiddie splash park. A performance stage behind the existing building will allow the field to host more concerts, films, and cultural programming.

Plans for the park.

Parents and community members are excited to let their kids run around the field safely and reduce congestion on the playground. They are happy that more concerts, films, and cultural programming will come to the performance stage. They were relieved that there will finally be trees, shade, and seating, and places for children to splash on hot days. They are excited to be able to go for a jog without having to battle with street traffic.

Friends of Stead Park told the committee that we are glad the city is upgrading playgrounds, including the Harrison playground on V Street. That is necessary since the number of adults and children is growing so rapidly. Stead's playground is already quite nice and doesn't have much room to expand, but this great piece of green space is crying out for better and more use.

Starting the project this year will go a long way toward encouraging families to stay in the city and to be actively engaged, as community members said recently and during public meetings last year.

We would like to thank Councilmember Barry and the other members of the committee for voting to accelerate the funding. We ask that the full Council retain this relatively low-cost, high-value project in the FY2014 budget when it votes on May 22, so we can move forward this year to start improving the field and provide some much-needed space and options for our families and our community.

7 comments

Raid affordable housing for summer school

Wed, 08 May 2013 08:50:00 EDT

by Nick Casey

The DC Council approved $4 million to keep summer school open to more kids. But the funds came out of the $51 million Mayor Gray pledged to increase the amount of affordable housing. (Post)

Comment

Don't let affordable housing become a victim of speeding (Nov 19, 2012)
Truxton Circle school and youth housing in doubt (Jan 23, 2011)
At rally, leaders promise action on affordable housing (Jan 28, 2013)
DC 2010 budget would end Saturday free parking (Mar 24, 2009)
DC Council: Don't choose parking meters over people (May 18, 2011)

Board sanctions Orange

Fri, 03 May 2013 08:54:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

DC's ethics board "admonished" Vincent Orange for keeping a campaign contributor's food warehouse open when health officials tried to shut it down. Orange will be able to get the violation expunged later this year. (Examiner)

Comment

"Young urbanists" electorally growing

Thu, 02 May 2013 08:58:00 EDT

by Peter James

Elissa Silverman had a strong showing in the special election with many votes from 20- and 30-something DC residents, including many young African-Americans, partly by campaigning on good government and a strong safety net. (Post)

Comment

For DC Council: Elissa Silverman (Mar 27, 2013)
At-large "pot poll" was actually very accurate (Apr 26, 2013)
Frumin, Silverman again top Let's Choose on zoning (Mar 20, 2013)
What's next for progressive reform in DC? (Jun 7, 2011)
For Ward 4 Council: Max Skolnik (Mar 23, 2012)

Should DC downsize its elected Attorney General?

Wed, 01 May 2013 13:50:00 EDT

by Walter Smith

In 2014, the District will join 43 states when its Attorney General becomes elected by the people, rather than being appointed by the Mayor. This is the result of the people's overwhelming choice in the November 2010 referendum, when 76% of voters ratified a Home Rule Charter amendment changing the selection process for the Attorney General.

Not everyone agreed with this change. In fact, when DC Appleseed suggested that the Council present this issue to the voters, we highlighted several arguments against the change. One of them was the potential for disagreement and tension between an elected attorney general and an elected mayor.

This potential has led the current Attorney General, Irv Nathan, to propose transferring a significant amount of his office's authority to the Mayor before the new Attorney General becomes elected. However, Mr. Nathan's proposals also have significant dangers.

The Attorney General's proposal and its potential benefits

The District's legal services would undergo three significant changes under Mr. Nathan's proposal. First, the bill would transfer control over the lawyers who advise agencies from the Attorney General to agency directors. Second, it would establish the Mayor's Office of Legal Counsel to coordinate those agency counsel. Finally, it would move the Child Support Services Division from the Attorney General to the Department of Human Services.

Mr. Nathan testified to Councilmember Tommy Wells' Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety on March 26 that these changes are needed "to minimize the potential for conflict . . . within the divided executive." He argued that his proposal is consistent with the voters' intent, because it leaves the Attorney General responsible for litigation and binding, formal legal opinions, and the Mayor responsible for programmatic, budget, and policy choices.

According to Mr. Nathan, it's reasonable to expect harmful conflict to arise because the Attorney General will aspire to be Mayor and therefore will find it to his or her political advantage to oppose the Mayor. This could undermine the Mayor's ability and responsibility to establish and implement policy for the District. The bill seeks to prevent this by making agency counsel, through their agency directors, accountable to the Mayor, rather than to the Attorney General.

Mr. Nathan is right that the elected Attorney General may well want to run for mayor, and that there could potentially be disagreements and tension between the two officers. Mr. Nathan is also right that an attorney general who believed the Mayor was attempting to implement policy not in accordance with law could effectively thwart that policy by directing agency counsel to oppose it. On the other hand, removing the Attorney General's authority over agency counsel also presents at least three potential downsides.

Potential problems with to the AG's proposal

First, the whole point of electing the Attorney General was to ensure that legal advice given by that officer and the agency counsel he or she supervises would be independent of the Mayor and accountable to the public. When the DC Council passed the referendum bill, it explained in its report that making the Attorney General elected would ensure the public that the officer "conducts their legal business without fear or favor, respecting the law and not pursuing the political agenda of anyone in either the legislative or executive branches of the government." Taking authority over agency counsel away from the Attorney General and transferring it to the Mayor appears to be at odds with this purpose.

Second, the proposal appears to be a step backwards from the efficient consolidation of legal services under the Attorney General that the Council spent 15 years establishing. Until 1998, the District's legal services were organized similarly to how Mr. Nathan now proposes, with agency counsel being independently controlled by their respective agency directors. The professionalism, coordination, and unity of the District's legal operations suffered under this bifurcated structure.

The Council remedied these problems by consolidating agency counsel under the Attorney General, first giving the then-Corporation Counsel supervisory authority in 1998, then giving the Attorney General complete control in 2005. This consolidation brought the District into line with the best practices in states that elect their attorneys general.

Among other things, the consolidation ensured that the Attorney General would be better prepared to defend agencies against litigation, because the Attorney General would have been supervising and coordinating actions by agency counsel action before any lawsuits could arise.

Finally, Mr. Nathan's proposal appears to undercut the referendum passed by voters. At the time of the referendum, no suggestion was made that its passage could require or permit a substantial downsizing of the office. Instead, the referendum was presented to voters as a way to make the office independent of the Mayor and the Council and accountable to them. Yet the current proposal undermines the authority of the office and transfers that authority to the Mayor.

At the same time, the downsizing of the Attorney General's office seems likely to reduce the willingness of the ablest candidates to run for the office, another result that appears inconsistent with the voters' intent.

Respect the voters and leave the Attorney General alone

The risk of tension and conflict between an elected Attorney General and an elected Mayor is real. But it is not at all clear that this risk is a problem that needs to be "fixed." In fact, it was expected that there would be constructive tension between the Mayor and the Attorney General that, on balance, would benefit the public. It was also expected that having legal advice that was independent of the Mayor would be of benefit to the public.

At the same time, it is clear that transferring authority over legal advice to the Mayor would bring very real costs. It would return the District to a dysfunctional system of legal advice that existed before 1998. It would potentially contradict voters' expectations when they passed the Charter Act referendum. And it would discourage able candidates who might run for the new office of elected Attorney General.

The best course, therefore, seems to be to allow the people to elect an Attorney Genial who would administer the office as it is now constituted. If the hoped-for benefits from this do not materialize, and the downsides that Mr. Nathan fears occur, there will be time later to make changes. For now, the Council should conclude that if it isn't broken, don't fix it.

10 comments

At-large "pot poll" was actually very accurate

Fri, 26 Apr 2013 09:58:00 EDT

by Tom Metcalf

When the results of the Dr. Bronner/DCMJ/PPP poll of Tuesday's at-large DC council race came out, supporters of candidates with weaker showings went to work discrediting the poll.

Photo by nchoz on Flickr.

Were Republican voters under-sampled? Would exclusion of cell phones skew results away from a candidate favored by younger voters? Do we actually expect 69% of registered voters to show up?

These are interesting questions and valid criticisms. But in the end, the poll turned out to be very accurate, almost eerily so.

Let's first compare the election night results with the poll results:

	Election	Poll
Bonds	32.19%	19%
Silverman	27.55%	13%
Mara	22.79%	13%
Frumin	11.42%	8%
Zuckerberg	1.97%	2%
Redd	1.88%	2%
Brown	1.40%
Undecided		43%

First off, note that the poll gets Perry Redd's and Paul Zuckerberg's election results exactly right, and Michael Brown's small showing justifies his exclusion from the poll. Essentially none of the undecided voters went for Redd, Zuckerberg, or Brown.

Another common criticism of the poll results was that 43% were undecided: with that many undecided, any candidate would seem to have a chance. But a more likely result is that the undecided voters will, in the end, follow the pattern of the already-decided voters. For the four major candidates, we look at this by comparing the election night results to the percent of the decided voters each candidate got in the poll:

	Election	Decided
Bonds	32.19%	33%
Silverman	27.55%	23%
Mara	22.79%	23%
Frumin	11.42%	14%

Here we see that the results for both Patrick Mara and Anita Bonds nearly exactly match. This tells us that the undecided voters, in the end, broke for Mara and Bonds in exactly the same proportion as the decided voters in the poll had.

On the other hand, when compared with their shares of the decided voters, Matthew Frumin under-performed on election night and Elissa Silverman over-performed. They were, of course, the two most closely-matched candidates, so we can add their totals together to see how the polling predicted their combined performance:

	Election	Decided
Frumin + Silverman	38.97%	37%

Their combined share of the decided voters in the polling was within two percentage points of their combined election night totals. The close matches for Mara, Bonds, and Frumin-Silverman show that it's reasonable to presume that the undecideds, even at 43%, will not deviate too strongly from the decideds.

Silverman did get more of the undecided voters than Frumin did, which is evidence of some degree of coalescence. Many would have been happy with either Frumin or Silverman, and perhaps were wavering between the two. When the poll (and other indicators) showed that Silverman was finishing stronger, they gave her their support. From the perspective of the Silverman campaign, though, this was too little and too late.

The first take-away from the numbers is that polling, even in a low-turnout special election in DC, can be very accurate. The second take-away is that polling data which shows one candidate to be stronger than another can lead to support consolidating behind the stronger candidate.

As Patrick Mara reminded us, Tuesday's election was the third one in recent memory in which multiple reform-minded self-styled progressive candidates have split the vote, giving a win to the establishment candidate. (Though others dispute whether Mara can claim the label of "progressive.") Many have wished for a progressive coalition which would rally around a single candidate.

One other thing that this poll has shown is that polling itself does not need to be the exclusive province of the traditional media and the campaigns. If Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps can support a poll, anyone can. We should all thank Adam Eidinger—the longtime radical DC political activist and Dr. Bronner's employee who organized the poll—for showing us that.

There's no reason a group of like-minded activists couldn't commission it's own timely and transparent polls, and to use their results to consolidate support for the strongest favored candidate.

19 comments

The GED is changing. Is DC ready?

Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:29:00 EDT

by Joe Weedon

Image from Defeat Poverty DC.

The GED has long provided an alternative path for students and adults who have not received their high school diploma. Several upcoming changes to the GED will make it more difficult for many District residents to pursue this path to a degree.

Vote today. Why not now?

Tue, 23 Apr 2013 08:44:00 EDT

by Jereme Altendorf

Today is the special election in DC. We've endorsed Elissa Silverman for Council at-large and a yes vote on the referendum for budget autonomy. Polls are open until 8 pm; find your polling place here.

Comment

Silverman asked Frumin to drop out

Mon, 22 Apr 2013 08:42:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

Elissa Silverman tried to convince Matt Frumin to drop out of Tuesday's DC Council at-large special election. Silverman may have offered to support Frumin against Mary Cheh next year instead, but he declined. (Post)

Comment

Don't panic about Cheh bill

Fri, 19 Apr 2013 08:33:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

Mary Cheh's proposal for a bill to allow ANCs to weigh in on by-right residential projects of a certain size was initially met with skepticism. But it wouldn't give ANCs as much power as originally thought. (UrbanTurf)

Comment

Charter preference lives

Thu, 11 Apr 2013 08:48:00 EDT

by Nick Casey

David Grosso introduced a bill that would allow (but not require) charter schools to give preference to local children. (Examiner) ... A task force recommended against this, but many people feel they ignored many factors.

Comment

Create one single lottery for charter and non-charter schools (Jun 29, 2012)
Level the playing field for charters and neighborhood schools (Feb 24, 2012)
Don't favor local kids in charter admissions, says task force (Dec 17, 2012)
Gray budget funds school modernizations and more (Mar 28, 2013)
DC drifting towards separate school systems. Are they equal? (Nov 16, 2012)