The Washington, DC region is great >> and it can be greater.

Posts about Muriel Bowser

Transit


Metro wonít open early for DC's biggest race of the year

Big marathons lean heavily on transit, whether it's local rail systems or networks of shuttle buses, to get thousands of participants to their start lines. However, due to SafeTrack, Metro will not be an option for the more than 30,000 runners in the Marine Corps Marathon (MCM) and its associated races this October for the first time in years.


Photo by Elvert Barnes on Flickr.

Metro has historically opened two hours early, at 5:00 am, for the race. This allows runners to get to the start line near Arlington Cemetery from all points in the system well ahead of the 7:55 am start.

On average, 24,000 runners use Metro to get the race, according to the MCM's organizers.

This year, however, Metro will open at its usual Sunday time of 7:00 am on race day, October 30th. This is not early enough for most runners to take Metro to what was the fourth largest marathon in the USA in 2015.

Instead, the organizers will offer parking in Crystal City and Pentagon City with runner-only shuttle buses to the starting line. Runners will also be able to begin the race for up to an hour after the 7:55 am start. Arlington Transit will run extra buses for runners as well.

The race has also changed its course slightly, adding sections in Arlington and shortening ones in DC. This was necessary because some road closures had been planned far in advance and the times couldn't be shifted; this is also why the organizers can't just delay the start.

Metro says no exceptions

WMATA announced a blanket one-year moratorium on early openings and late closings as part of its SafeTrack plan this May. The moratorium has stood since then for any event, from concerts to Nationals games and now the MCM.

Metro has not wavered on the moratorium, even under pressure from local pols including DC mayor Muriel Bowser.

To date, WMATA has only considered adding to the time it needs for maintenance work, seeking board approval in July to make a "temporary" suspension of late night service permanent.


Photo by Elvert Barnes on Flickr.

Opinions are mixed on Metro's decision

The majority of participants in large marathons take transit to start lines, with races all over the world encouraging runners to rides trains or buses. The benefit of existing transit networks is just that: the network. With one in place, race organizers do not need to create a network of shuttle buses that can collect runners from the various corners of a metro area.

While Metro does need to accomplish the SafeTrack repairs and the reduce its backlog of deferred maintenance, not opening early for the MCM, when the vast majority of runners ride the train, is far more detrimental to them than not staying open late for, say, a Nationals game, when on average only 11,000 attendees ride Metro.

Metro could be more transparent about what it needs to accomplish when it refuses to adjust its hours slightly for large events. In the case of the MCM, what work will be done during those two hours that cannot be done another time? Knowing this would help people understand if Metro really needs the time or just wants to stick to one standard for simplicity's sake.

Elizabeth Whitton feels Metro isn't being unreasonable:

"I've organized large scale athletic events in the past and take an opposite view of the issue. For these large scale events (across the country, not just DC), the usual protocol is for the event organizers to request additional public services (transit, port-a-potties, police, etc) and then work out agreements with the necessary government entities. Most local governments charge fees in exchange for additional services.

I read this news as: Metro does not feel it is mutually beneficial to provide additional rail service to the MCM start due to its on-going Safetrack program.

Realistically, the marathon could change its start time. Lots of reasons why this is not practical, though. For one, the race has a permit to use the 14th Street Bridge for a specific time of day. The logistics of changing this permit would be a nightmare.

Bottom line: Metro should not receive a lot of the blame for this. It is the responsibility of the race organizers to ensure participants can access the start line."

Metro certainly is not entirely to blame in this situation. The MCM organizers have already made some lousy decisions for this year's race, for example, moving the pre-race expo, where the majority of participants go to pick up their bibs and race packets, to the transit-desert of National Harbor from the transit-rich Washington Convention Center.

Gray Kimbrough thinks that some intermediate threshold is warranted.

"I understand that Metro can't open early or stay open late for every event. They absolutely need to have set thresholds so that it's not up in the air.

It seems like now is as good a time as any to come up with reasonable thresholds. Or is Metro's stand really going to be that SafeTrack can never be delayed or altered for any events? Will they continue to close down lines through the Cherry Blossom Festival, for example? Are they not going to alter anything for the next inauguration either?"

Canaan Merchant thinks the situation presents some opportunities for Metro to consider:
"Metro could charge more money to organizations who want to hold an early or late event. Or Metro could see if the work that they're planning on even affects downtown areas; if not, then the system could maybe open in some parts and not the others.

In general, as much as Metro needs to get its maintenance straight, they need to think long and hard about turning away easy ridership boosts like this one as well."

What do you think?

Development


Upper Northwest hits peak NIMBY about a homeless shelter

Fifty short-term apartments for homeless residents are likely coming to Idaho Avenue in upper Northwest DC. At a community meeting last night, some residents showed just how much they think the poorest people in DC need to stay far away from their exclusive enclaves.

Helder Gil posted this flyer on Twitter, which people anonymously circulated at a community meeting Thursday night on a proposed homeless shelter next to the police station on Idaho Avenue, between Cleveland Park and Cathedral Heights.

It includes the astoundingly offensive phrase, "Homeless lives matter; the lives of community homeowners matter too."

What's being proposed

Mayor Muriel Bowser set a very laudable goal of spreading out homeless shelters across all eight wards of DC. It's not best for homeless residents to all be concentrated in one small area, and puts the burden entirely on one neighborhood.

Most people expected people in some wealthy neighborhoods to fight the idea of any homeless people coming to their communities. But the flaws in how the Bowser administration executed on this plan, with seemingly too-high payments to property owners, some of whom were campaign donors, overshadowed any such debate.

Recently, the DC Council revised the plan to place all shelters on public property or land the District could acquire. In Ward 3, west of Rock Creek Park, the new site is the parking lot of the police station on Idaho Avenue. And now that the legitimate problems with the plan are past, some are indeed attacking the very idea that upper Northwest has to play any part in solving the need for homeless housing.

Many of the usual arguments against any project have come out in full force: the zoning doesn't match; our schools can't afford it; what about neighborhood security; this will add to traffic and harm my property values.

Misconceptions abound

The anonymous flyer says, "We fundamentally oppose the Mayor's plan of equal distribution of homeless population—to build a shelter in each ward regardless of land availability and economic soundness." (The land seems to be quite available, actually, and economically, DC has to spend nothing to buy a parking lot it already owns.)

The letter, and people at the meeting, alleged that a shelter would harm property values. DC Council Chairman Phil Mendelson disputed that:

"There are plenty [of] empty public buildings in the city which can be renovated and used as shelters," the letter also says. First off, not really; second, this really is pretty much empty public land. What they mean is, "there are plenty of public buildings in someone else's neighborhood."

Talking about how the statements are wrong on their face is beside the point. The statements are morally wrong. Many people of DC's fancier neighborhoods, even ones who identify as Democrats ("liberal in the streets, NIMBY in the sheets") believe all of the city's need for housing, whether for homeless residents, the working poor, young college grads, or anyone else, should be solved somewhere else where "there's plenty of empty land."

Never mind that all of those other neighborhoods "over there" have people in them too, people who might be okay with some shelters or halfway housing or other social services but understandably don't want it all. Why should one part of the city get an opt out just because it's the richest part?

Not all residents of the area are hostile to the less fortunate:

Yes, to whoever said that, thank you.

Poverty


DC's homeless shelter plan just got a makeover

In February, Mayor Bowser put forth a plan to replace DC General with seven smaller family shelters around the District. The DC Council just made some key changes: all of the sites will now be city-owned rather than leased, and a few will be in different locations than first planned.


Photo by Jeffrey on Flickr.

After Mayor Bowser released her plan, many raised concerns about its expensive leasing agreements with private developers and the suitability of some of the proposed sites. Yesterday, the DC Council unanimously approved a revised plan that targets those concerns. The changes are expected to save DC $165 million. Here they are:

The shelter locations in Wards 3, 5, and 6 will change

Three sites, in Wards 3, 5, and 6, will relocate to city-owned land.

Many criticized the original sites: the Ward 5 location, for example, was too close to a bus depot with bad air quality as well as a strip club, and the Ward 6 location was too close to a party venue.

All three locations would have required zoning variances or exceptions to become shelter sites, but that isn't the case with the new sites.

Ward 3 Councilmember Mary Cheh and Ward 6 Councilmember Charles Allen both expressed support for the new sites. Ward 5 Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie, who previously opposed the shelter plan, now supports a shelter at either of the two proposed sites for Ward 5. Councilmember Yvette Alexander, however, said she is worried that the changes to the locations will delay the closing of DC General.

The District plans to purchase land for sites in Wards 1 and 4

DC will work with property owners to purchase two of the proposed sites, in Wards 1 and 4. If that doesn't work, DC will acquire the properties through eminent domain.

To fund the purchases, the new plan is to use capital funding originally set aside for the renovation of Ward 4's Coolidge Senior High School. Ward 4 Councilmember Brandon Todd said using the school renovation funds places an unfair burden on Ward 4 residents. But Councilmember David Grosso, who is also the Education Committee chair, assured him that the school renovations would still happen on schedule; since the renovations are still in the planning stage, the school wouldn't have been able to use the funding this year anyway.

Ward 1 Councilmember Brianne Nadeau added an amendment to the new plan that ensures the property owners of the Ward 1 site pay any back taxes they may owe to DC before the District purchases the property.

Mayor Bowser and Phil Mendelson aren't on the same page

Ward 8 Councilmember LaRuby May is worried that the new plan could overburden Ward 8 with more shelter units than other wards. She proposed an amendment that clarified the maximum number of units allowed at each site, but it failed after Council Chairman Phil Mendelson said he felt the issue could be worked out among the council before the next vote without an amendment.

While many councilmembers praised Mayor Bowser for her initiative and courage on the original shelter plan, Council Chairman Mendelson accused the mayor's office of "obfuscation and misinformation" and a lack of collaboration with the council during this process. Later in the day, Mayor Bowser made it clear that her office and the council are still very far apart on the plan.

What happens next?

"We should all be getting ready to go to happy hour, because we got it done!," said Councilmember Vincent Orange. Not so fast, though. There are still a few more steps before this bill becomes a law.

The DC Council will hold another reading of the bill on May 31. If the council approves the bill then, it goes to the mayor for approval. If she vetoes it, nine councilmembers must support the bill for it to become law. It's possible that a few of the councilmembers with misgivings, many of whom are facing tough reelections, could be swayed by lobbying by Mayor Bowser or her allies to vote against the bill.

Government


In its attempts to provide affordable housing, DC has struggled to set clear goals

In 2006 and 2012, DC set clear numbers for how many affordable housing units either needed to be built or needed to be preserved by a specific date. In both cases, there wasn't enough data to actually track progress, and the goals fell by the wayside. Today, there still isn't a plan for providing affordable housing for everyone who needs it.

Advocates and District officials often find themselves jumping from crisis to crisis. At Museum Square, for instance, residents are scrambling to prevent landlord Bush Companies from evicting half of Chinatown's remaining ethnically Chinese population, after tenants (and many District officials) were notified of Bush's plans via demolition notices.

As the DC Fiscal Policy Institute wrote in a 2015 paper, "While there have been some very important successes, the lack of a coordinated, proactive policy for [affordable housing] preservation has led to many missed opportunities, resulting in the loss of whole communities to sale [and] large rent increases."

Meanwhile, too many DC residents don't understand how big the problem of affordable housing is. They hear about crises like Museum Square, but are left to cobble the bigger picture together through disparate facts like "there are over 70,000 families on DC's affordable housing waitlist," or "there are effectively zero market rate units left in DC that are affordable for low-income workers."

Here is an overview of the District's past targets, and some ideas for new ones.

There have been attempts to set clear goals and stick to them

Two-dozen representatives from District agencies, local housing nonprofits, and research organizations helped author a 2006 report that then-mayor Anthony Williams commissioned. At the time, developers were starting to pour money into new projects west of the Anacostia River; DC's housing problem in Wards 1-4 was less that development dollars were scarce, and increasingly that the new projects were raising rents, making it hard for low-income families to stay.

District leaders and the authors of the 2006 report were beginning to realize this, and they set these goals:

  • Produce 55,000 new units by 2020.
  • 19,000 of those units should be affordable (7,600 below 30% of AMI; 5,700 between 30-60% of AMI, and another 5,700 between 60-80% of AMI).
  • In addition, preserve 30,000 currently affordable units.
  • Adopt a local rent supplement program and reach 14,600 households.

Of course, goals don't matter if nobody takes them seriously.

In 2007, Mayor Fenty appointed Leslie Steen as "housing czar" to implement the 2006 plan. She was supposed to cut through red tape and coordinate the many District authorities that touch on affordable housing, including DCHD, DCHFA, DCRA, DMPED, and DCHA. But she ended up being marginalized within the administration, and ultimately resigned in frustration.

In 2007 and 2011, Alice Rivlin wrote two follow-up reports; she praised the District's progress on some fronts, and basically threw up her hands on others; in 2011, nobody had the data to track progress towards the 2006 targets.

Another report was released in 2012 under the auspices of the Grey administration, and laid out these goals:

  • Preserve 8,000 existing affordable units.
  • Produce and preserve 10,000 net new affordable units by 2020 (I couldn't find a detailed AMI breakdown for these 10,000 units).
  • Support development of 3,000 market rate units by 2020.

Grey made a public commitment to reach the "10 by 20" goal, but since 2012 talk of these goals has faded. The Coalition for Nonprofit Housing and Economic Development has worked hard to get the District to commit to an investment goal: $100 million a year in the Housing Production Trust Fund. But Mayor Bowser has yet to adopt specific goals for the number of affordable units she wants to preserve and produce.


Mayor Bowser announcing affordable housing initiatives in January of last year. Photo by Ted Eytan on Flickr.

Setting numerical goals might be worth another look

If we establish another set of city-wide goals, they must be clear, and we must be able to track progress towards them. Such goals could accomplish at least two things:

  • Helping focus our collective efforts. Once we've agreed on a set of targets, we can get creative with solutions. Maybe it's up-zoning some parts of Ward 3; maybe it's strengthened Inclusionary Zoning, maybe it's more preservation and accessory dwelling units. (If we set respectable goals, it'll probably require some combination of all of the above).
  • Having a clear, public goals can help District residents hold their government to account. We could ask, "Why are we missing our targets?" We cannot ask that question now.

Here's an example of a measurable goal, just as food for thought: "The District should have no net loss of affordable units, relative to our current stock and distribution of affordability."

So if we have 40,000 units affordable to people who make below 40% of Area Median Income, we should still have that many in 2030. That's a clear goal, which the public could use to hold their representatives accountable.

An equally clear, less conservative goal might be, "The District should ensure that 30% of its total rental units are affordable to people making below 40% of AMI."

Today we're closer to having the data to track progress towards city-wide goals. The Urban Institute, in conjunction with the DC Preservation Network, has compiled currently available records (you can find a report from December here). The city's trying to improve its own data collection.

Clear goals and stringent data collection have helped the District come close to ending veteran homelessness. As Kristy Greenwalt, head of DC's Interagency Council on Homelessness, told the City Paper, "In the past, there was no systematic approach. We're in a very different place now, so we can actually track what's happening and why."

Goal setting alone can't build or preserve housing, and planning isn't execution. But without precise goals, it's hard to know if we're falling down or making progress—ensuring that new people can move to DC, existing residents can stay, and low-income people can live close to good jobs, schools, and public amenities. A comprehensive, strategic solution to our housing crisis begins with knowing what it would mean to win.

Development


The first two efforts to turn Petworth's Hebrew Home into housing failed. Will the third time be different?

Just a few blocks from the Petworth Metro, a District-owned apartment that most call the Hebrew Home has been vacant since 2009, and DC is asking for resident input on its latest effort to redevelop the land (the first two fell through). The end result could be 200 new units of mixed-income housing, along with retail and park space.


The Hebrew Home, looking west on Spring Road. Photo by Jonathan Neeley.

Located at 1125 Spring Road, the Hebrew Home's name is a reference to the building's original use serving the elderly Jewish population with housing and health care. From 1925 to 1969, the property grew to include an array of social services available to young and old within a community that both understood and supported the specific religious, linguistic, and cultural needs of its clients.

When the Hebrew Home determined it could no longer adequately serve the needs of the local Jewish population by remaining on Spring Road, it sold the property to the District government and moved into a new facility in Montgomery County.


The Hebrew Home and the adjacent Robeson School building, at 10th and Spring NW. Image from DMPED.

This isn't the first effort to redevelop the Hebrew Home

From 1968 until its closure in 2009, the District used the Hebrew Home site as a mental health facility for the homeless. Since it closed that facility, the District has attempted to breathe new life into the building without success.

In the fall of 2010, the DC Department of Human Services proposed using the site to shelter families instead of sending them to DC General. That plan would have cost an estimated $800,000 to renovate the building for 74 families. However, the site was removed from consideration due to then-Councilmember Muriel Bowser's concern that the immediate area had an "inordinate amount of group homes" and two homeless shelters within a two-block radius of the site.

More recently, efforts in 2014 to redevelop the historic structure and the Robeson School (which sits immediately adjacent, to the east) resulted in a plan to create approximately 200-units of housing with 90% designated as affordable, including a senior preference for 25% of the units.


The Robeson School building. Photo by Jonathan Neeley.

Development stalled again, however, when the District learned that it wouldn't be able to transfer ownership to the DC Housing Authority without a formal Request for Proposals process. Moreover, Bowser expressed reservations about the plan being weighted so heavily toward affordable housing. Due to these factors, the District restarted the process to develop the site in April with what it's calling OurRFP, a process in which the city solicits input from community members on how to use a site before developers start submitting proposals.

The Hebrew Home could become much-needed housing for all incomes

The first of two OurRFP workshops to decide how to redevelop the Hebrew Home was earlier this month. There, officials from DC's office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (DMPED) shared some key data:

  • The lot is 144,400 square feet in size.
  • The site includes three buildings. The development will not include the small building at the western edge of the site.
  • The former Hebrew Home structure is historic, but the Robeson School is not and can be razed.
  • The property has good access to transportation. It's near the Georgia Avenue Metro station, numerous bus lines, and Capital Bikeshare stations.
  • The site has a walk score of 93 and a bike score in the 80s.

A map of the transit options surrounding the Hebrew Home. Image from DMPED.

Workshop attendees split into 13 working groups to discuss what they would like to see happen with the Hebrew Home.

The site has tremendous potential to provide a significant amount of housing in an area with ready access to public transportation and where housing prices and displacement are of great concern. Within my working group, there was general agreement that the RFP should start from the position of including a strong affordability component, with the financing then driving the configuration of affordable and market rate housing to a balanced level. There was an understanding that the economics of development will have an impact on what can be financed and that, at the end of the day, the development must become a reality for any housing to exist.

With regards to the living units, there's a need for both family-sized units and apartments for seniors. I would like to see every unit (if possible) be ADA compliant; as units become vacant in the future it would be ideal if any resident in need of housing would be able to move into the building and not be prevented due to the unit's configuration.


A map showing existing affordable housing surrounding the Hebrew Home site by location and number of affordable units. Image from DMPED.

As for the type of building that goes up, it is clear that people want the new construction to fit into the neighborhood context. Whether the building was traditional, modern, contemporary, or something else, the materials, massing, and architectural detailing's ability to make it fit the character of what's around it certainly exists.

We also discussed the massing of the new construction on the Robeson site. Some suggested that a by-right approach would be more in keeping with the neighborhood and better fit in. I countered that I would prefer a Planned Unit Developmentwhere a developer provides the community with benefits in exchange for a zoning exception— for three reasons:

  1. A PUD would allow for a slightly larger building. The existing Hebrew Home building is one story taller than allowed by by right, and I think that an additional story on the new construction that matched the height of the historic building would not be out of place, especially as it would be located between the Hebrew Home site and the Raymond School & Recreation Center.
  2. A PUD would also result in more oversight and community opportunities to participate.
  3. As zoned, the building is residential. But the existing Hebrew Home building has a space on the first floor with a separate entrance that could support a small store or possibly another use such as an early childhood development center.
I think the community would benefit from vetting these options to see if they're a good fit rather than not discussing them at all.

One of the last things the group discussed was the public space and sustainability. As part of this discussion, we talked about trees, benches, green roofs, and other possible uses for the existing green spaces. As this is an opportunity to enhance our natural environment, I also mentioned that we should advocate for all trees and landscaping to be native plantings. The green space between the small building at 1131 Spring Road and the Hebrew Home is also large enough for a small park or other type of public space.

There will be another OurRFP workshop in May, and DMPED anticipates releasing the RFP solicitation in June 2016.

A version of this post originally ran on Park View, DC.

Poverty


Where were critics of the homeless shelter deal on all the other, worse deals?

When DC mayor Muriel Bowser announced she'd close the DC General homeless shelter and replace it with smaller shelters in all of DC's wards, everyone knew there'd be pushback. Now it's ratcheted up in the form of a slick video. But the video makes a point that could equally apply to many other, less worthy actions too. So why now?

Not only does this video have fancy production values, the group behind it, the anonymous "DC Residents for Responsible Government," also paid for it to be a sponsored post on Facebook and run as an ad before YouTube videos, and possibly other places as well.

The video highlights the widely-reported facts that the replacement homeless shelters involve building on land which in many cases is owned by big donors to the Bowser campaign, and at seemingly unnecessarily high prices.

This isn't a non-issue, and the fact that the costs seem so high and the outcome so favorable to certain donors has clearly hamstrung this otherwise-worthy initiative. It's left many supportive activists frustrated. They'd absolutely expected well-heeled neighbors of many shelters to fight against the idea—the recent HBO minisieries Show Me a Hero depicted exactly how communities react to this kind of thing. But they didn't expect to have to defend such questionable economics, too.

Still, this won't be the first time DC spends more than might be necessary on an economic development deal. Yet people only will spend the money to create a glossy animated video when we're talking about a deal that also challenges exclusivity in some parts of the city. DC Jobs with Justice pointed this out in a series of tweets:

(If you want to learn more about some of these controversies, we have numerous articles on the Wizards arena in Ward 8, including an op-ed by Elissa Silverman; the LivingSocial tax break from 2012; and RFK Stadium many many times.)

This debate is reminiscent of ones in the world of transit as well. Many people rightly point out that transit projects are often more expensive than elsewhere in the world. It's right to ask how they can be built more cheaply. That said, road projects are also comparably expensive. If people ignore transit's cost, then we won't get much transit. But if pundits only talk about transit projects' cost and not road projects too, they're putting transit at an even greater disadvantage.

DC needs to be fiscally responsible in all its economic development deals. But closing DC General and putting shelters all across the city is also an important goal. Let's hope the anonymous people opposing the shelters do a snazzy video if DC tries to give a sweetheart deal for a new football stadium which will only move a team a couple of miles. Chances are they won't.

Government


The Wizards practice facility deal should be more transparent

Publicly-funded stadiums are a controversial issue in the District. There were public debates and long, contentious hearings about Nationals Park and the DC United stadium, and public speculation is now turning toward RFK and the future home of the Washington football team. But our latest sports project, a $50 million-plus practice facility for the Wizards, has largely flown under the radar.


Photo by Keith Allison on Flickr.

I introduced legislation called the Wizards Practice Facility Cost Containment Act of 2016 earlier this month to fix that, and to set basic limits on spending. There's a hearing on that bill this Thursday, March 24 starting at 3 pm in the John A. Wilson Building.

Here are the project's details

Events DC, our taxpayer-funded convention and sports authority, has been tasked with building the new practice facility, and is contributing $27 million to the construction. The District government itself is contributing $23 million, and Monumental Sports, which owns the Wizards, will put in $5 million in upfront rent payments.

The project will include a practice facility for the Wizards, which will have all the modern bells and whistles the team feels it needs to attract the top talent in the league, from cryosaunas to hydrotherapy pools. The facility will also have a 5,000 seat arena that will be the new home of the Washington Mystics of the WNBA for their 17 home games each year, and that Events DC promises will host smaller concerts and entertainment events.

There's one more detail: Under the current funding agreement, the District, through Events DC, will be on the hook for any and all cost overruns.

Too much would fall on taxpayers

I don't think that is right, given that the primary beneficiary of this facility will be the Wizards franchise, and its owner, Ted Leonsis. I have concerns that taxpayers are funding something that Monumental Sports and Leonsis can do themselves—and teams in other cities have done without taxpayer help—but I am especially focused on the cost overrun issue.

The District has a poor track record delivering capital projects on time and on budget. I don't need to remind Greater Greater Washington readers about the streetcar saga. Our school modernization program routinely goes over budget. Nationals Park was originally presented as a $435 million project, and even conservative estimates today put the final cost for the stadium at almost $700 million. (And that's before we learned last month the stadium will need another $160 million in repairs and upgrades over the next 10 to 15 years.)

If we don't bring a basic level of transparency and accountability to the Wizards project, it could easily grow far beyond our original $50 million investment. I've gotten pushback that given the project is in Ward 8, which has not experienced the private investment and economic renaissance neighborhoods west of the Anacostia River have had in recent years, we should spend whatever it takes. A reckless approach to budgeting will not bring more permanent jobs and development to Ward 8, and, in fact, it could impact the money Events DC has available for important promises it has made in terms of workforce development and community programming.

Because of the funding sources used to finance the project, the project not only doesn't need Council approval in the first place, but its costs could also go above $100 million before Events DC would need to ask the Council for additional funds. I find that troubling, which is why I introduced legislation to limit the District's total contribution to $50 million, including both the city government and Events DC.

Let the DC Council weigh in

My legislation isn't about killing the deal, or about taking investment out of Ward 8. Ward 8 is long overdue for investment, and it's shameful our East of the River communities have been historically left out when it comes to large public projects.

But the District's $23 million contribution for the practice facility comes from the more than $120 million the Council already allocated to rebuild the infrastructure at the St. Elizabeths redevelopment, a project which I wholeheartedly support. It is critical that these funds go toward a plan that will provide the maximum possible benefit to the Ward 8 community.

We usually use our legislative process to iron out big questions of how to spend tens of millions of dollars. We hold hearings, have committee markups, and vote on projects and programs. We also vote every year on our city's budget.

But this project has almost completely avoided the normal legislative process, and was set to be approved without the Council ever voting on it. There's been no meaningful feasibility study, no cost breakdowns to justify the estimates, and only one public roundtable, held in December before most of the details of the deal had been released.

Contrast that with the process surrounding the DC United stadium, which the Council exhaustively studied through multiple hearings and votes. And, I would point out, Mayor Bowser rightly insisted on a cost-sharing arrangement with DC United in case of overruns.

The legislation I introduced several weeks ago, along with a resolution on the funding agreement, will allow the Council to vote on the project, and will require a conversation about the District's priorities should the project go over budget. This is a basic level of accountability and transparency we should expect of all of our projects, but especially of taxpayer-funded stadiums like this.

Again, those who are interested can attend the hearing this week, on Thursday, March 24 in Room 500 in the John A. Wilson Building. To sign up to testify, contact the Committee of the Whole at (202) 724-8196 or cow@dccouncil.us by 5:00 p.m on March 22.

Support Us
DC Maryland Virginia Arlington Alexandria Montgomery Prince George's Fairfax Charles Prince William Loudoun Howard Anne Arundel Frederick Tysons Corner Baltimore Falls Church Fairfax City
CC BY-NC