Posts about Peter Shapiro

Early in the election cycle, we wrote that our election coverage would focus on issues. There are many significant decisions facing the DC government, from how and whether to fund affordable housing, to what kind of transportation infrastructure to build, to where to put development and what kind, to how to improve education.

HogWash made an excellent point in the comments on today's breakfast links: you're not low-information voters. You don't need someone just to tell you for whom to vote without reason. What you need is more information to help you make up your minds. We ought to have delivered that, and we did not.

The candidates did not help. Even now, at the end of the campaign, there is very little information available about how the candidates stand on these issues. For example, I can't identify any issue, save campaign finance, where we know Biddle would reliably vote differently than Orange; even then, both candidates support some reasonable campaign finance reforms.

They both have said they support increasing funding for affordable housing but haven't done much to actually change that. Neither wants to make the tax structure more progressive. Neither supports traffic camera enforcement. Both support better education and Orange actually has more specific suggestions. The list goes on.

Shapiro, meanwhile, impressed us with his thoughtful and detailed ideas for economic development, workforce development, and more. On many areas of policy, including but not limited to transportation, he spoke from experience and a thoughtfully considered point of view.

After the mainstream newspaper endorsements came out and it was clear that the anti-Orange vote was coalescing around Biddle, we discussed whether to jump on the bandwagon, so to speak. For many, the decision not to do so came down to the simple fact that we could not identify a positive, policy-centered reason to be excited about Biddle.

Some editorial writers and residents seem to feel that DC's only real significant issues are whether a candidate is stealing, will keep spending low, and supports the current flavor of education reform. Otherwise, it seems, a candidate need not want to change a thing about the District's policy and can still earn a glowing endorsement.

We should expect more from our leaders. We need vision. The vision need not necessarily match ours on every single issue, but a candidate with vision is open to listening to persuasive arguments about why a particular policy is the best one. A candidate without it will simply take whatever stance gets headlines and pleases the latest group of angry constituents.

We should expect more from our pundits as well. Very little of the news coverage of this race tried to tease apart the candidates on any substantive issues. Most reporters and editorial writers seemingly filled out a 2-question scorecard: Might this candidate be a crook? And is he or she likely to win?

Using that yardstick on all elections is a recipe for very bland politics and a change-averse council. We need better. And we at Greater Greater Washington could have done more to shine a light on candidates' positions.

We don't want to make endorsements based on what will give us the most political influence. Our role is to inform all of you, the readers. The more you know, the better you can advocate for issues you care about or make up your minds for candidates.

We welcome your input on how we could best talk about political races in the future. The experience in this race will help us learn and shape future coverage. And, as always, consider becoming a contributor. We can't write about candidates' positions on issues if we don't know what those positions are. Candidates try not to take controversial stands in primaries, and unless someone can pin them down, there's no information to share.

Any revenue bump will not last long as drivers adjust to actually following laws. Plus, it's a red herring to cast doubt on the program just because it's coming up in a budget cycle. DC needs to spend money to get cameras. Therefore, the program has to be part of the budget. MPD has been trying to buy the cameras for over a year, and budget and procurement have long been the obstacle.

Below are the candidates' answers:

Sekou Biddle: Putting aside the fact that these cameras will certainly change Tom [Sherwood]'s driving habits, I'm not a fan of this idea because, frankly, it looks like we're taking what was initially designed to be a public safety tool and turning it into a revenue generator. We see in the budget the claim that we're not having tax and fee increases, but we're looking to generate more revenue through speed cameras, and then using those cameras to do both speed and red lights. This really is disconcerting, and we need to really think about what we're using them for.

Vincent Orange: I do not support the idea. We've already raised in excess of $100 million through the speeding cameras and parking tickets and things of that like. I think that now it's become a revenue generator, and to say that we're going to cover the entire city with this apparatus is not a good idea in my view.

E. Gail Anderson Holness: I don't think it's a good idea. I think it's a waste of taxpayer money to use the funds to put those cameras in place ... I think there are other options to raise funds for the District of Columbia. I'm out there waving in the mornings and I see Maryland and Virginia tags coming into the District. There ought to be some kind of commuter tax.

You don't let the good suffer with the bad in this instance ... of course Tom, some of us go over the speed limit a little bit every now and again, and we're going to be subjected. But it's going through that green light piece is a major issue, so I'm not in favor of it all.

Peter Shapiro: I think there's a little bit of election-year pandering going on with this, because it's an important issue, and we've got some serious concerns with public safety in the city. Now the key is around balance, and so the red light cameras and even speed on green can be a very healthy thing. Now the idea of blanketing the whole city doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Kojo Nnamdi: Why not?

Shapiro: Because there are many many intersections where if we put this in place, then it's only about generating revenue. There are any number of anecdotes, you will hear people, I have my own experience with this, where it it feels like it's essentially a trap for folks. It's not making the community safer, so what you really have to do is make sure that we have a comprehensive plan, but that they're located in places where they actually will reduce speed in ways that keeps the community safe.

Shapiro is right that there's a lot of pandering here. During the debate, Vincent Orange repeated the phrase "livable, walkable," as he did at the Urban Neighborhood Alliance forum. It rings hollow from Orange, but it's nice that he has decided to play up the "livable, walkable" angle.

But "walkable" is part of "livable, walkable," and part of making a place walkable is making it safe to walk around. If Orange really believed in that, he might have mentioned in his answer that it's important to curb speeding and red light running.

Shapiro is right that we should only place cameras where they will improve safety, and it might be just fine to reduce the level of fines as DC increases the number of cameras. However, when Gray said he would "blanket" DC with cameras, he likely didn't mean one on every corner, but rather far more than we have today. Good for him.

All 4 candidates focused their answers around their complaints of the program. Perhaps they were all assuming that most people who listen to WAMU are driving. One day, hopefully soon, people running for office citywide will feel that if they pander, it's better to pander to residents who want safer neighborhoods than drivers who want to speed with impunity.

Meanwhile, if you are a Democratic voter in DC, vote for Peter Shapiro, whom we endorsed, in tomorrow's primary. It's not enough to just get a more ethical candidate if that candidate still won't take a stand on the important issues that actually affect policy. Ultimately, the reason to have a candidate who's not bought and sold by moneyed special interests is so they vote for better policies. Shapiro has demonstrated far more commitment to good policy than any other candidate in the race.

Shapiro worked with community stakeholders to bring a grassroots vision to fruition along Route 1, which has culminated in the Gateway Arts District. Despite the economic downturn, revitalization continues along the corridor, stopping dead in its tracks at the District's doorstep on Eastern Avenue.

Shapiro is ready and committed to bridge the gaps along DC's gateway corridors, starting with Georgia Avenue, and his record more than suggests that he is fully capable of doing so. Additionally, his involvement on local boards, including the Latin American Youth Center, the Nonprofit Roundtable of Greater Washington, and the Washington Area Housing Partnership, exemplifies his longstanding commitment to community development.

As executive director of the College Park City-University Partnership, Shapiro was a constructive voice in critical town-gown disputes, where he was able to win support from both sides. The Prince George's County Council elects their chair, and their choice of Shapiro strongly demonstrates his ability to work collegially with other councilmembers to work toward common goals. This skill is missing in many members of the current DC Council.

The District is a part of a diverse metropolitan region. Its issues affect communities hyper-locally and also cut across jurisdictional lines. A councilmember with a proven ability to think and work regionally will only benefit District residents in the long-term.

Incumbent Vincent Orange's record, particularly with regard to economic development, stands in stark, disappointing contrast to Shapiro's. Orange has long viewed the city's urbanity as something holding us back. He has exploited it, particularly in Ward 5, by touting a brand of economic development best defined by poorly-designed big-box stores and clear-cutting, greenfield development. Meanwhile, revitalization and small business development along Rhode Island Avenue, New York Avenue, and Bladensburg Road has floundered.

At the recent candidate forum, Orange repeatedly uttered Tommy Wells' catchphrase "livable, walkable." If he truly has come to believe in strengthening urban spaces as a top priority, he has not demonstrated that with more than words, at least not yet. Whether he wins re-election or remains in public life in other ways, he will have opportunities to actually walk the walkable walk, and hope he will avail himself of these.

Biddle's experience with education is impressive, but in both the past and current campaigns he has not been able to articulate a clear vision for how having him on the council will change education for the better. Nor has he made a compelling argument for electing him in other ways beyond simply not being Vincent Orange.

We do hope Biddle will continue to advocate around education policy, where DC's discourse still focuses too much on "horse race" issues such as how education news affects a mayor's political fortunes rather than what will best help DC's kids succeed.

Meanwhile, your vote on April 3 ought not to turn on vote-splitting game theory. Instead, vote for the best candidate for the job. That candidate is Peter Shapiro.

This is the official endorsement of Greater Greater Washington, written by one or more contributors. Active contributors and editors voted on endorsements, and any endorsement reflects a strong majority or greater in favor of endorsing the candidate.

Small business: As in many forums, most candidates gave few specifics, and in most cases didn't sharply disagree with one another. For example, I asked all candidates to talk about a time they'd helped a local business directly. I asked this first of Vincent Orange, who often touts his work bringing Home Depot to the Rhode Island Avenue Metro area but when talking about small business, speaks much more in generalities.

Orange and the other candidates launched into generic, prepared statements about the value of small business. Sekou Biddle's answer, that he helps them most of all by patronizing them, was the most responsive. Orange was, however, able to name a lot of local businesses once pressed.

Affordable housing: Peter Shapiro had thoughtful recommendations for how to promote housing affordability, drawing on his experience with Arts District Hyattsville when he served in Prince George's County. Perhaps because of his experience as an elected official in the past, Shapiro gave more specifics about actions he has taken or policies he would implement on this and some other issues.

All candidates raised their hands when asked if they would restore the Housing Production Trust Fund; hopefully Orange, in this budget cycle, and whoever wins the race, in the future, follows through on that promise.

Ethics: Shapiro went the furthest on campaign finance reform, criticizing the current council for not taking stronger steps and arguing it should pursue a public financing system for elections. Biddle called for reforms to money order contributions, the source of the latest scandal.

Orange, as he has in the past, emphasized his advocacy for banning outside employment for councilmembers, but hasn't agreed to support limits on corporate contributions. He defended his decision not to cosponsor Mary Cheh's recent campaign finance bill as "self-serving," since Cheh holds other jobs as a law professor at GW and teaching bar review courses. (Tommy Wells, the one co-sponsor, does not have any outside employment).

Transportation: During a section on transportation, it came out that of the candidates, only Sekou Biddle is a member of Capital Bikeshare, and only he and Peter Shapiro subscribe to Zipcar. Biddle even pulled out his CaBi key, on his keychain, and his Zipcar membership card right on the stage.

I asked candidates about how we could help cyclists and drivers better understand each other's needs and concerns. Without being "gotcha" about it, I wanted to give Vincent Orange a chance to speak to what he had learned from the January 1st episode where he parked in the 15th Street bike lane, was called out on Twitter, and apologized. Orange said that he hadn't realized on which side of the white stanchions he should park, and that now he does.

Biddle proposed having driver education include information on how to deal with bicycle infrastructure and people riding bikes. This would only be a small start, since many DC drivers move in from other states, but it was a thoughtful response on the topic.

Biddle was also most able to talk about the role of buses in helping connect communities. I asked candidates to name a bus line that they feel works well in DC, partly to see how many could name a bus line at all. Orange gave an example of a bus line, the X2, but couldn't name it without help from a staffer who shouted it out unprompted.

Holness, marriage, and the Redskins: Dr. E. Gail Anderson Holness, generally considered a long-shot candidate, gave some reasons to appreciate her candidacy, but also some reasons for concern. As a resident of Ward 1, she lives in the most urban neighborhood among the candidates, and says she rides a bicycle and takes many forms of transit regularly. She was able to name many bus lines and talk about them in depth.

However, Holness was the only candidate of the four not to encourage Maryland residents to vote to keep the new same-sex marriage law. She also said on last week's WPFW debate that she supports giving land to the Redskins for a practice facility, on the theory that the master plan calls for recreational space.

The plan does ask for recreation space, but intended to serve local residents, not to be a fenced-off facility that only serves a professional team. I pushed on this issue, asking her why she would fulfill a neighborhood request in this way. She didn't have a good answer and seemed confused by the policy details.

The other candidates all reaffirmed their opposition to the practice facility. Orange said he would support bringing the actual team back and potentially using public funds, if it were part of a plan to create a "livable, walkable" community around the stadium as the District is doing at the ballpark.

"Livable, walkable" actually is a phrase Orange spoke at least 5 times over the course of the debate. It's a testament to the phrase Tommy Wells coined for his campaign slogan, and the policies behind it, that Orange has latched on. Hopefully this means he genuinely supports the principles of "livable, walkable" communities; either way, he clearly believes it's a growing political force.

Kwame's revenge: Speaking of Mr. "Livable, Walkable" Wells, the forum's most dramatic moment came near the end, when Orange suggested that Wells should have at least toned down his criticism of Kwame Brown's Lincoln Navigator scandal, to avoid losing his committee and his opportunity to advance his agenda. Shapiro quickly disagreed, arguing that Wells was right to speak up and that it shows the "dysfunction" in the current council that others did not come to his defense.

Did the forum help you make up your mind? What stuck out as most meaningful to you?

The biggest beneficiary of Thompson's cash has been my opponent, Mr. Orange. Included in the last bundle from the special election was $26,000 in money orders, all over a two-day period from all over the country. These are mostly the very same "contributors" who gave to the Gray campaign in a two-day period in June 2010.

Sources have indicated in the press that this is likely why the feds are investigating Mayor Gray's campaign finances: the possibility that these were "straw man" donors, which is a criminal act.

We can't hope to solve the big problems until we have a government people can trust and believe in. As such, ethics reform must be the top priority. I fully support ending corporate contributions to local campaigns, eliminating constituent services funds, and prohibiting councilmembers from holding outside employment. The distorting influence is clear—you can read about it almost every day in the Metro section or on the editorial page of the Washington Post.

We also need greater transparency for campaigns and political action committees. As long as there is money in politics, we need to know where it is coming from and how it is being spent. It's unacceptable to have a system where those receiving huge government contracts are also funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars to councilmembers.

Jobs

Our city is also facing a jobs crisis. There is a stunning lack of urgency among our leaders on the topic of unemployment. With nearly 30% unemployment in Ward 8, we can't wait to act. This situation needs to be turned around quickly. But, this isn't just about jobs. This is about careers. This is about building a workforce in our neighborhoods.

Unfortunately, just as we have limited accountability with our city's economic development incentives, we have equally poor accountability regarding government support for non-profits. As the DC Fiscal Policy Institute's chart on the Department of Employment Services and related spending shows, there is no rhyme or reason to our job training efforts. We need to focus on specific industries such as technology, hospitality, and retail.

We need a strong workforce intermediary, a public/private/non-profit partnership that will be much more nimble and innovative in matching the needs of the employers with curricula of the non-profits and the skills of the population. And we need all of this right now. Giving people a way to make their own living, with a real career, is the best way to lower poverty, decrease crime and even improve public education.

Education

Of course, to get at the root of our employment problems we must improve education, both for children and adults. I agree with Chancellor Henderson that we are continuing to make progress in our schools. We can't let up, but we can't think of education as a standalone issue. All children in the District deserve access to a first-class public education system. We need to continue the drive for teacher development and accountability, and we also need to do the same for principals.

We have examples of great success, such as the DC Promise Neighborhood Initiative. But, we also need to understand where the Council's role best fits in education. I have no intention of micromanaging our schools, but I do promise to do everything I can to keep administrators and teachers accountable.

To this end, I am calling for a reinstatement of an Education Committee on the Council, instead of leaving education to the Committee of the Whole, where the issue becomes a political football. In a committee, members can dig deeper into the issue and collaborate and cooperate to provide the healthiest oversight for the system.

And more

Additionally, we need to do more to promote small businesses in the District. Small businesses provide jobs and drive economic growth in our neighborhoods. I support a comprehensive initiative to streamline our city's regulatory processes so we can help start more small businesses and help them grow. Starting a business is tough enough as it is and we don't need our broken bureaucracy making it harder or costlier.

We have a lot of work to do in the District. We have much left undone with respect to encouraging affordable housing development and implementing inclusionary zoning. I'm committed to bringing real progress on those fronts. I also see so much potential for building strong, healthy neighborhoods and creating great places, especially in parts of the city that have struggled to attract reinvestment and along our future streetcar corridors. We need to take a long hard look at how we can make these communities work better for the residents who live there. We have no excuses to not do so.

During my time on the Prince George's County Council, I helped champion the Gateway Arts District along Route 1. This was no easy task, and it involved spending a lot of time developing relationships and building trust with those in the community. It also meant focusing on getting results, and making sure all of the stakeholders felt represented, heard, and respected. As your at-large Councilmember, I will use this experience as a model for the District.

I believe that it is possible for a pragmatic progressive to win elections and achieve real results. I know this because I have done it. I know that it's vital to have legislators who can work with their colleagues, and also with those in the community. It's about cooperation and results. It's not about who can take credit.

The election on April 3 is our chance to reject the politics that have brought our government to a standstill. This is an opportunity to say no more to a Council that is petty, ineffective, and downright corrupt. We can send a clear message to those who would stand by and defend their fundraising while hiding the details and running from reporters.

The people of the District deserve better than that. We need leaders who are willing to lead for the sake of their constituents. With your help, and your vote, we can turn the tide and get the Council working again.

Learn more at Shapiro2012.com
Communicate at peter@shapiro2012.com and 202-640-1992
Follow me on Twitter @petershapiro
Like me on Facebook

Peter Shapiro is an at-large candidate for the DC Council. The views in this article are his and do not necessarily represent those of Greater Greater Washington. We invite all candidates running for the DC Council to share their views with our community, but reserve the right to edit posts to fit our content and format rules. If you are a candidate and would like to submit an article, please contact elections@ggwash.org.

Serious flaws create serious scandals

Some of the biggest flaws in DC campaign finance involve corporate contributions. Corporate entities are allowed to directly give money to candidates in DC, unlike under federal campaign finance law. Worse, many corporate entities have multiple subsidiaries, such as developers who create a separate LLC for each project, and are allowed to donate up to the maximum from each of them separately.

This is very common in DC campaigns. The fact that so many incumbents garner much of their campaign cash this way may be why not a single other councilmember voted for Wells' amendments to ban the practice.

That's not the only problem with campaign finance, though perhaps the biggest legal loophole. There are also ongoing federal investigations into the campaigns of Mayor Vincent Gray and Council Chairman Kwame Brown. Prosecutors are reportedly looking into whether the Gray campaign accepted numerous money orders that weren't really from separate individuals.

The District was reminded of those investigations in dramatic fashion this weekend when the FBI raided the offices of Jeffrey Thompson, who owns Chartered Health Plans, the District's largest contractor. He is also one of the most significant donors to district politicians.

Thompson and related entities have given more than $700,000 to various campaigns over the years, including massive sums to Gray, former mayor Adrian Fenty, and at-large councilmember Vincent Orange. The raids also targeted a public relations consultant to the Gray campaign.

Proposals seek to mend the system

Several reformists have emerged with concrete proposals to make campaign finance in the district more transparent and effective.

When Tommy Wells introduced his doomed campaign finance amendments to last year's ethics bill it seemed like his might be the lone voice for reform on the council. But today he joined Mary Cheh as the only cosponsor on her "Campaign Finance Reform Amendment Act of 2012."

According to a statement by Cheh's office, the bill would "prohibit pay-to-play, require disclosure of external fundraising activities, and... ban corporate contributions."

Meanwhile, the DC Committee to Restore Public Trust, led by activist and former council candidate Bryan Weaver and Ward 7 ANC commissioner Sylvia Brown, is pushing a ballot initiative that would ban direct corporate contributions to DC campaigns.

Organizers must collect over 22,000 signatures from registered DC voters to place the initiative on the November ballot. Volunteers plan to gather signatures at every polling place during the April 3 primary.

The initiative has garnered some high-profile backers. Councilmember Wells is providing organizational support and, while announcing her legislation, Councilmember Cheh said that she "wholeheartedly support the efforts of the District residents working on" the initiative. At-large candidates Peter Shapiro, Sekou Biddle, and David Grosso, as well as Ward 8 candidate Jacque Patterson, also have voiced support.

Several candidates running for DC Council in the April 3rd primary, May 5th special, and November 6th general elections are taking an additional step to show their commitment to campaign finance reform. Grosso, who is running for the independent at-large seat up for election in November and currently held by Councilmember Michael A. Brown, has proposed a "transparency challenge" to all council candidates.

The challenge asks candidates to proactively embrace campaign finance reform ideals by pledging to post information on their websites about the directors, managers, shareholders, and corporate structures of any companies that they receive donations from. Additionally, the challenge requires candidates to disclose the names of people who collect multiple donations for them as well as information on each individual donor.

So far, candidates Max Skolnik (Ward 4), Jacque Patterson (Ward 8), and Peter Shapiro (at-large) have pledged to join the challenge. Although, as of March 6, only Grosso has posted his information online. All participants are challenging sitting incumbents. So far, no incumbents have joined the challenge.

Incumbents fail to speak up or act

Unfortunately, aside from Mary Cheh and Tommy Wells, most members of the DC Council seemed unconcerned with campaign finance issues and unlikely to act on reform before the upcoming elections.

Muriel Bowser, primary author of last years ethics bill and chair of the council's Committee on Government Operations, stated that she intended to take action on campaign finance. However, she has since defended herself for accepting corporate donations and argued against banning corporate money outright, making it unlikely that she will support Cheh's bill.

It seems even more unlikely that a majority of councilmembers will act on any sort of campaign finance reform. Several have spoken out against reform. Notably, yesterday morning Jack Evans (D-Ward 2) joked about his dislike of Cheh's legislation.

The rest of the council should work with Cheh and Wells to craft a bill that will reform the campaign finance system while still allowing participation from all engaged parties. DC should ban corporate bundling and strengthen disclosure rules, to make it more apparent who is donating and ensure that corporations do not skirt contribution limits. Contractors and other corporations that do business with the city should face even further restricted in order to avoid obvious conflicts of interest.

DC's politicians have proven all too willing to take advantage of weak campaign finance regulations. But it seems as though the city is becoming sick of it. The DC council should step up, fight against this culture of corruption, and bring corporate influence over elections back from the stratosphere and down to the height of individual influence.

Please suggest your questions in the comments, and if you really like another one, submit a comment saying so. Please think about how a candidate might answer or how they might avoid answering a given item, and see if you can design your question to push them to give a good answer. I'll pick some of the best ones for the forum.

Plus, I hope you can attend the forum on Tuesday! It's free and open to the public. It's mostly standing room, with some limited seating for senior citizens and persons with disabilities. An informal reception afterward with complimentary appetizers and a cash bar will follow at the nearby Café Saint-Ex, 1847 14th Street, NW.

The forum is cosponsored by Borderstan, the Dupont Circle Advisory Neighborhood Commission, the Dupont Circle Citizens Association, the Dupont Circle Merchants and Professionals Association, Dupont Circle Village, Dupont Festival, Historic Dupont Circle Main Streets, the Logan Circle Community Association, the Meridian Hill Association, and the U Street Neighborhood Association.

However, Stroup was concerned with the fact that Peter Shapiro has more cash on hand with $73,652.94. How is this possible? Peter Shapiro has loaned his campaign $50,000. So if we are really talking about a fundraising advantage and gathering support, it is clear that Sekou Biddle is the one who has it.

Sekou Biddle also has more support in the District of Columbia. Donors from the District means votes in the District. 83% of Biddle's donors are from the District. Only 51% of Shapiro's donors are. Biddle also significantly outpaces Shapiro in the raw number of people who have donated to his campaign, in the District and overall. More than twice the number of District residents, 196 compared to 71, have donated to Biddle. Sekou also simply has more donors, 237 over 138.

So what does this mean? It means that Sekou has broader support in the District of Columbia. Many of the individual contributions are small, but that is because regular, hard working DC residents, not moneyed interests, are supporting his campaign. It also means his name recognition is higher and that people like what they hear enough to give. Sekou has also successfully won a seat for the State Board of Education in Wards 3 and 4, wards known for being rich in progressive votes.

Shapiro may have a history of public service in Prince George's County, and I applaud him for that. But in the District he has an almost complete lack of name recognition, financial support, record of service or record of voter participation to run on. That is not a situation that lends itself to a successful district-wide campaign in just under two months.

I am not asking Shapiro to drop out of the race and support Biddle. I am confident that our campaign organization and fundraising has us on the right track to win. But Stroup and others who think that we need to have only one progressive in this race might want to look at asking the candidate without grassroots support, name recognition, or a District record if he wouldn't mind stopping his efforts to buy an at-large council seat with his checkbook.

Over the course of the last two months, I have had the opportunity to sit down with both Biddle and Shapiro to discuss their respective campaigns. Biddle, who briefly held the at-large seat before losing in last April's special election, has simply not been able to put together a persuasive campaign.

During Biddle's last attempt, he proved unable to articulate a clear vision for DC and energize voters around his ideas. His campaign was also dragged down by endorsements from most of the DC political establishment at the same time the Sulaimon Brown and Navigator-gate scandals were breaking.

Biddle, to his credit, holds positions that are favorable to most progressives. He would be a solid vote in favor of many things we'd like to see, including stronger ethics and campaign finance rules. Unfortunately for Biddle, his campaign is mired with low fundraising numbers and internal problems. Recently, Biddle announced via email that his campaign manager—the former leader of the DC Republican Party—had departed.

He also still has not demonstrated a clear vision or solid positions, leaving potential supporters concerned he would repeat the mistakes of the last campaign. These factors, plus his tepid third place finish last April, show that he simply isn't positioned to defeat Orange.

Thankfully, Peter Shapiro provides an equally strong progressive candidacy, combined with fundraising and organizational prowess. Shapiro, who grew up in the District, served on the Prince George's County Council in Maryland before moving back to the District with his wife. Shapiro brings to this race years of experience both as a legislator, but also as an environmental activist and organizer.

Shapiro was tapped to join an ethics task force in Prince George's County, created in the wake of former county executive Jack Johnson's arrest on corruption charges. This experience gives Shapiro credentials for helping restore trust in the DC Council. Presently, Shapiro lives in Ward 4 and runs the Chesapeake Center for Public Leadership.

In a three-way race with 2 progressive candidates, Orange would very likely cruise to victory. While I don't doubt Biddle's commitment to improving the District, he has been unable to build a campaign that can win. It's time for Biddle to put the good of DC ahead of his own ambition, withdraw from the race, and support his fellow progressive.

Note: This is not an official endorsement in this race. Greater Greater Washington is an opinion site, and unless specifically designated as an endorsement, opinions posted here are the opinions of their individual authors and not necessarily of the site's editors or other contributors. We will likely post an official endorsement at a later point in the campaign.