Posts about Corruption

Land deals aren't just a giveaway

The Tuesday headline was "Million-Dollar Properties, $1 Deals." The lede talks about 5 projects that went to Donatelli Development and Blue Skye Construction. "The appraised value of all this public land, according to city records: $17.5 million. The price paid by the developers to the city, a little more than a parking ticket: $88."

Sounds like a massive handout! Where can I get a few acres for a buck? But later, Madden explains that it's not quite so simple. The deals come with big strings. In particular, they often have to build affordable housing.

Certainly there's some profit in these deals, and if that profit goes to the biggest donors, that's a big problem. However, Donatelli's profit isn't anywhere close to the $17,499,912 that the intro might lead people to believe.

Madden gives a table of the top 5 land deals:

Project	Payment to DC	Value of land	Contributions by dev. team
Hine Jr. HS	$21,800,000.00	$44,700,000.00	$194,045.00
West End (Library & Fire Station)	$18,000,000.00	$30,018,000.00	$127,295.00
The Wharf	$1.00	$95,000,000.00	$126,732.81
Capital Fire Station	$15,000,000.00	$40,300,000.00	$123,646.00
Minnesota-Benning (Phase 2)	$10.00	$13,176,000.00	$122,076.00

This table isn't really, complete, however, without factoring in what the development teams have to spend on the public amenities that go into the buildings.

Project	Pmt. to DC	Value of land	Public amenities
Hine Jr. HS	$21,800,000.00	$44,700,000.00	20% affordable housing C Street & plaza
West End	$18,000,000.00	$30,018,000.00	New library, fire station
The Wharf	$1.00	$95,000,000.00	15% affordable housing
Capital Fire Station	$15,000,000.00	$40,300,000.00	(can't find this)
Minnesota-Benning	$10.00	$13,176,000.00	100% affordable housing

What makes a good deal?

Figuring out how much those public amenities are worth, however, is the tricky part, and whether the government is getting a good deal. People often disagree about how much affordable housing is fair. In the West End, DC is giving Eastbanc two parcels, which now contain a library and fire station. Eastbanc can build housing, but has to also build a new library and fire station.

Eastbanc is also building 52 units of affordable housing with an additional $7 million subsidy from the city. DC's zoning commission then let Eastbanc out of the Inclusionary Zoning affordable housing requirement on one of the two parcels, after the developer and officials argued that the value the city is getting from the new library and fire station uses up all the value of the property.

Cheryl Cort thinks that despite the IZ exception, this is probably the best deal we can get. A library advocacy group Ralph Nader founded, the DC Library Renaissance Project is suing to stop the project, arguing that DC should have held out for more affordable housing. Many neighbors want the library, already and think the Nader group is going too far. There's no definitive way to know who's right.

Under the current leadership of DMPED's Victor Hoskins, the city has been seeking less affordable housing from its public land deals, and more direct revenues.

Sometimes public officials don't push for important amenities

DC economic development officials are often quite eager to get a deal done, even at the cost of important amenities. At Minnesota Avenue and Benning Road, a DDOT plan for the area recommended a new road connection to expand the grid around Minnesota Avenue Metro and a highly congested intersection.

One of the two bidders included the connection, while the winner, Donatelli, did not. Representatives of Mayor Fenty's Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (DMPED) then joined Donatelli in lobbying against the concept or even reserving the right of way for a future street. Maybe it was too expensive or difficult, or maybe it was an important amenity that officials just didn't bother to push for.

Madden and Patel discusses some other problems with public land development deals like this. A law requires the developers to hire small and minority-owned businesses. Sometimes they don't. (Other times, those companies are just shells that give a payout to owners while a larger firm actually does the work.)

Patel writes,

A WAMU investigation of 110 D.C. developments that received $1.7 billion in subsidies found:

• Flaws with benefits pledged for about half
  
• A third missed requirements on hiring local businesses, or the city didn't have paperwork for them
  
• Another 15 percent downsized or delayed benefits, costing the city millions in lost revenue and others arguably didn't need the subsidy in the first place
  
• Less than 5 percent of the subsidies approved were for the city's poorest areas, wards 7 and 8.

The series has an overarching thesis that much of this comes about because the developers are dishing out campaign cash. That certainly may be part of it, but it's not the only reason. Plus, Aaron Wiener plotted donations against the size of deals and found only a weak correlation.

Cash probably does have an effect. So do other factors. Sometimes economic development officials or politicians just want to get the deal done because a ribbon-cutting is appealing while a project sitting unfinished is a hassle.

Public land deals, though often bungled, are still necessary

Madden says, "Activists and even some council members have asked why the city just doesn't hold a public auction for these properties and award them to the highest bidder." That's an option, but then there would be no amenities. Where would the new library go? Making it part of a larger mixed-use project is probably the best way to use the land, since a library doesn't need to take up an entire building. Wouldn't we be better off with a broader mix of uses that maximize the value of this site?

DC could just rent space in an office building for a library, perhaps, but is that space going to be well-suited for a library and in the right location? Plus, that would mean library rent goes up as neighborhoods become more desirable, creating a risk that future budget cuts imperil libraries entirely instead of just shortening their hours. Meanwhile, there's definitely no spec building out there that can fit a fire station.

Others, like Parisa Norouzi of Empower DC, feel that public land should never go to private uses. She'd like DC to keep all of the publicly-owned land for schools, libraries, and so on. Many other activists also view any public-private partnership deals with suspicion, and don't want a private company building a library.

These public-private deals, imperfect as they are, seem to be a compromise between these two views. The public gets something for its land, but the land can also accommodate housing and offices when the public doesn't need every square foot for public use.

Still, it's important that public officials push to get the best deal for the city, and ensure that winning bidders keep the promises that helped them win bids in the first place. When officials don't, sometimes it's because of campaign cash, but there can be many other reasons as well, which are just as important to combat.

Question 3 (removing elected officials): We recommend voting FOR Question 3.

This question will amend the Maryland Constitution to make it easier to remove elected officials from office once they've been convicted of or plead guilty to certain crimes.

Two recent cases involving officials have resulted in situations that hurt government and left some residents without representation. When Leslie Johnson was convicted on corruption charges in Prince George's, she refused to resign, and Maryland's laws only allowed her ouster upon sentencing. For several months, her council district in Prince George's was effectively without representation.

This change may not stop corruption. But it will make it easier to recover when an elected official does wrong.

Question 4 (Dream Act): We recommend voting FOR Question 4.

Education is a fundamental building block of our democracy. Allowing undocumented immigrants who were brought as children to the United States to attend state universities as residents will create more opportunities for these young people to join our society.

The Dream Act will allow those undocumented immigrants who grow up in Maryland to attend a state university at the in-state tuition rate if they get good grades in high school and spend 2 years in a community college. Opening up this opportunity for our neighbors will grow the Maryland economy and will open up new paths for immigrants who had no say in where they grew up.

Question 5 (redistricting): We recommend voting AGAINST Question 5.

Marylanders are being asked to approve or disapprove a Congressional redistricting proposal. The legislative maps drawn by the Maryland legislature are horribly gerrymandered. For proof, take a look at Maryland's 3rd District, which Comedy Central named the "ugliest congressional district in the nation."

The authors of this map create what would likely be a new Democratic seat by drawing oddly-shaped districts to divide more conservative voters. This kind of gerrymandering is bad when Republicans do it, and it's bad when Democrats do it.

To make matters worse, it also splits minority groups, making it harder for them to participate effectively in the democratic process. It splits communities, so that members of a single community have multiple disparate representatives who also serve voters of very distant communities with very different needs.

Question 6 (same-sex marriage): We strongly urge you to support marriage for all families by voting FOR Question 6.

In the legislative session earlier this year, the General Assembly courageously passed a bill to allow same-sex couples to marry in the Free State. While we oppose the idea that civil rights should be subject to a popular vote, opponents of gay marriage gathered enough signatures to put this issue on the ballot.

Gay couples deserve the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts. Maryland's expansion of marriage equality will not affect religious institutions, because protections were specifically written into the bill. Equality will mean stronger homes and stronger families for the 17,000 same-sex couples living in the state.

A vote upholding the law will also send a message to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender teens in the state that they are full members of society, too. Their fellow citizens support them and their right to love whomever they want.

Maryland's LGBT families share the same values as the straight couples in the state. They deserve the same legal recognition of their relationships from the state as well.

Question 7 (gambling expansion): Our contributors split evenly on this issue, and therefore we are not endorsing any position.

Replenishing the education trust fund could provide Maryland with the money it needs to move ahead with projects the Purple Line. However, gambling has adverse social consequences, and would be unlikely to promote sustainable economic development in Prince George's County. Voters should weigh these and others factors themselves in deciding how to vote.

These are the official endorsements of Greater Greater Washington, written by one or more contributors. Active contributors and editors voted on endorsements, and any endorsement reflects a strong majority in favor of endorsing for or against each issue.

Councilmember Franklin has been one of the more vocal proponents of smart growth and TOD since joining the Council in 2010. He pointedly shunned developer contributions to his campaign when he ran for his council seat, and he actively advocated for more government accountability and "putting the 'public' back in public meetings."

Therefore, many community activists and smart growth supporters were caught off guard by Franklin's rushed efforts to spearhead CB-79 and a companion bill, CB-80, which would exempt transit station area development from the traffic analysis that often requires widening roads around a development.

Franklin (District 9) has two co-sponsors for these bills, Derrick Leon Davis (District 6) and Council chair Andrea Harrison (District 5).

Timing of CB-79 raises transparency and good government concerns

Franklin presented CB-79 and CB-80 with little fanfare on September 25. He originally scheduled both bills for a quick hearing before the PZED Committee, which he chairs, on October 3. However, after receiving a barrage of public opposition, Franklin pulled the bills from the agenda on October 2 and promised to revise them.

In an email sent to concerned parties on October 6, Franklin circulated a proposed second draft of CB-79, and said that CB-80 "ha[d] been pulled for this year and is being substantially revised for consideration next year."

Franklin is placing CB-79 on the PZED agenda on October 17, presumably so it can clear the committee process in time to be introduced as expedited legislation on October 23. That's the last possible date in the 2012 legislative session to introduce zoning bills. Only two more regular legislative days remain in the 2012 session after then: November 6 (Election Day) and November 20.

Franklin's stated goal in introducing CB-79 is to streamline the development review process, thereby making it more attractive to the private sector and luring developers away from sprawl and toward transit. But many community and smart growth activists believe the legislation would encourage shoddy, suburban-style, non-pedestrian- and non-transit-oriented development.

Additionally, many community members have expressed concern that CB-79 is reminiscent of the same type of non-transparent, developer-friendly legislation that has fostered an ethically troublesome pay-to-play development culture in the county. A federal corruption investigation sent the previous county executive, Jack Johnson, his wife, former councilmember Leslie Johnson, and several other county officials and developers to prison in recent years.

In an open email to Franklin on October 2, former councilmember and chair Tom Dernoga excoriated the way the current PZED chair was proceeding with these bills. He wrote:

You "may" have a point about the [need to change the] status quo. However, the manner in which you are handling this is mind-bogging [sic], and raises serious questions in the mind of the public whether land use ethics have been cleaned up from the days of Jack Johnson and his predecessors. ...

Who drafted these bills? What non-County government interests participated in the analysis, drafting and review? I hate to be pointed, but the substance of the bills, combined with the process to this point, make these questions obvious. Any valid policy bases are obscured by the manner in which they are being pursued.

Substantively, Franklin's proposed second draft of the bill cures few, if any, of the problems with the initial version. Indeed, the new draft creates additional complications.

CB-79's "opt-in" language provides little protection to wary communities

The proposed second draft of CB-79 introduces, but does not define, a new term: "expedited transit oriented development." The bill states that areas within a half-mile of Metro or MTA transit stations may be designated for such development in a comprehensive plan adopted and approved by the Council after January 1, 2013. Such plans could include a master plan, sector plan, sectional map amendment, zoning map amendment, or overlay zone.

The purpose of these changes, according to Franklin, is to emphasize that a transit station area can only be exempted from traditional site plan review by "opting in" during a future comprehensive planning process that requires notice and a public hearing.

Despite Franklin's emphasis, however, the Council would still be able to designate an area for "expedited transit oriented development" at the tail end of the comprehensive planning process managed by the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC).

The Council could overrule the Commission and designate such areas, even the community and M-NCPPC specifically opposed such a designation. Historically, such last-minute controversial Council amendments have been commonplace, and they usually favor developer interests.

CB-79 adopts Subtitle 27A language but limits form-based zoning, accountability, and transparency

In our earlier post, we recommended using the County's existing Subtitle 27A process to achieve Franklin's stated goals for CB-79. The new draft of CB-79 now includes some elements of the Subtitle 27A process within its text. While this may seem like a good idea at first blush, it actually introduces new and unhelpful complications.

The new draft attempts to graft large portions of Subtitle 27A, the form-based Urban Centers and Corridor Nodes Development and Zoning Code, onto this new and undefined "expedited transit oriented development" process. Specifically, CB-79 would require all expedited TODs to adhere to the use restrictions and to the building envelope, urban space, recreation, architectural, and parking-and-loading standards of Subtitle 27A.

Unfortunately, CB-79 conspicuously leaves out Subtitle 27A's most important portions: the "regulating plan" and the administrative procedures for permits.

The regulating plan sets out the shapes of buildings, setbacks, street types, and more for each type of the station area. M-NCPPC, the public, and the Council create the regulating plan through a collaborative and comprehensive public planning process. Without a regulating plan, CB-79 would end up applying building envelope and urban space standards in a vacuum.

The administrative procedures provide for advance public notice and appeal rights, which are essential accountability tools that keep public officials and developers honest, while still permitting a streamlined permitting procedure. By doing away with this, CB-79 would upset the proper balance between speed and accountability. And it would do so in precisely the non-transparent way that candidate Mel Franklin argued against during his run for public office.

CB-79 would end up limiting the public's ability to participate in the review of essential and profitable development projects. That's a dangerous move for a county with such a torrid (and recent) history of developer and public official corruption.

Subtitle 27A provides more accountability and less chance for mischief than CB-79

Councilmember Franklin has stated that CB-79 will strongly incentivize private sector investment in the redevelopment of the county's long-neglected station areas by shortening and creating more certainly in the development process. But the reality is, the county already has legislation that accomplishes those worthy goals in a much better reasoned and sensible way. It's called Subtitle 27A.

Form-based zoning under Subtitle 27A was developed by the professional planning staff of the M-NCPPC, with the assistance of three reputable outside consulting firms over the course of multiple years, at significant expense to the county and M-NCPPC. It has been available to the County Council for more than 2 years. Yet this Council has taken no action to develop regulating plans for any of the county's 15 Metro station areas.

In 2011, M-NCPPC began a series of public meetings designed to educate the public about TOD plans for the Blue Line Corridor in the central portion of the county, along Central Avenue (MD-214). The eventual goal of that process is to facilitate implementing Subtitle 27A at the 4 Metro station areas along that corridor (Capitol Heights, Addison Road, Morgan Boulevard, and Largo Town Center).

Before concluding that additional legislation such as CB-79 is needed to properly spur development at Metro stations, shouldn't the county at least implement and then properly evaluate Subtitle 27A?

In a future post, I will explore other ideas that will help to incentivize urban TOD in Prince George's County. For now, though, please take council member Franklin up on his invitation to submit additional public comments on CB-79. You may do so by emailing the Clerk of Council at clerkofthecouncil@co.pg.md.us, with a copy to Franklin at mfraklin@co.pg.md.us. It's also a good idea to send your comments to your own council member, if you are a county resident.

Budoff and Chairman Brown assembled a very good budget office team. Whoever replaces Brown to run the council—the temporary, interim and/or permanent new chairman—would be wise to keep Brown's budget office in place.

Brown also improved transparency and transported the council into the 21st century through smart use of technology. Under his watch, the council's website became easier to navigate. He put resources into digitizing legislation, so even archival bills are online.

All hearings are now available to view online and you can also sign up online to testify. Brown accomplished all this by collaborating with members of the public, and these significant advances make active participation in our government much easier. Brown and his staff deserve much credit for this too.

As residents, as voters, and as taxpayers, we should make good use of these tools Brown put into place to make our government better and more accountable.

Brown is our responsibility

We should also hold ourselves accountable to do a better job of picking our leaders. There were red flags about Kwame Brown from the very beginning of his political career. He wasn't truthful about his voting record, he embellished his resume, and he used politics as a way to employ close family and friends. This was years before his efforts to acquire a "fully loaded" SUV on the public's dime and even before we knew about his "Bulletproof" boat and the debts that ensued.

We should have seen these red flags waving, but Brown got a pass from voters in all parts of the city. We must learn to take a much more active role in the selection of our political leaders and to hold them accountable once they get in office. We shouldn't rely on the US Attorney to clean up the messes we helped make.

I first met Kwame Brown about this time of year in 2003, at a Jamaican restaurant on upper Georgia Avenue. I was then the Loose Lips columnist for Washington City Paper, and I came at the request of then Ward 4 Councilmember Adrian Fenty. Brown had largely adopted the Fenty technique, wearing out his shoe leather knocking on doors throughout the city in pursuit of an at-large seat on the Council. He was energetic and personable.

He was also lucky. The incumbent he was running against, Harold Brazil, had very severe ethics problems of his own that were made the front page of the Washington Post several times. Brown positioned himself as the reform candidate, even though it was a little unclear what he really stood for. Often, when questioned, Brown had a hard time figuring that out himself.

I had concerns he lacked a vision or an agenda. But there were other question marks as well. When questioned by reporters about his voting record—he had only voted once in DC before running for office—he tried to obfuscate. He had to clarify his academic credentials, after stating he graduated from Dartmouth's business school when he really attended a weeks-long executive program. Yet, even to me at the time, those missteps seemed more like misdemeanors, not signs of future felonies.

Yet, the red flags kept popping up around Brown. Yet again, DC voters kept voting him into office. After the 2004 campaign, reporters revealed unconventional campaign finance reporting from Brown's campaign. Then, in the midst of the 2008 campaign, the Post did a story about how his campaign funneled money to a political consultant, whose address was a shuttered pizza joint in Columbia Heights. Still, Brown ran unopposed.

During Brown's campaign for the council chair, NBC4 reporter Tom Sherwood broke the story about his significant financial debt, but voters largely chose to ignore it.

We're not being honest with ourselves when we say that we are "shocked" or "betrayed" or "disappointed" in Brown. His colleagues and interested voters knew his shortcomings.

We must get involved

Do we need better options on the ballot? Yes, of course. That only happens through the active participation of ourselves in our government.

There are many ways to accomplish this. Several months ago, a group of residents including myself formed DC Public Trust to put a campaign finance reform initiative on the November ballot. Money is a major barrier to getting good people to run for office in our city, and I believe Initiative 70 will help tear down that barrier and level the playing field. I urge my fellow residents to support this effort.

Even if you don't, please take an more active role in local government. DC needs you.

A police department statement pointedly noted that Toles's "violations [were] observed by a uniformed patrol officer operating a marked police cruiser on the Capital Beltway..."

Apparently, it took more than the usual amount of effort from police to stop the speeding councilmember. The Examiner reports that Toles's vehicle was "surrounded by officers"—indicating that multiple vehicles and officers were involved in the chase prior to the vehicle being stopped on Branch Avenue. WJLA states that "some officers approached Toles's car with their guns drawn."

Multiple officer accounts state that Toles repeatedly identified and referred to herself as the District 7 county councilmember and acted in a belligerent manner toward the officers throughout the traffic stop.

After police realized that they had stopped a member of the county council and not some ordinary scofflaw, they decided to issue her a citation only for an unsafe lane change, which carries a $90 fine and one point against her driver's license. The officer gave Toles a written warning for speeding.

Police defend their actions, claim no preferential treatment

Police were quick to defend their initial handling of this matter. However, they also left open the possibility that additional charges may be forthcoming after further review of the situation by police brass.

In response to growing concerns from the media and the public about apparent preferential treatment of a county official, the police stated:

The issuance of a warning citation for the speed is consistent with the typical discretion applied by police officers to speeding motorists. The traffic violations were captured on the police officer's in-car camera, and the incident will be subject to command review. At the moment, the video is evidence in a pending District Court traffic case, and will not be released.

Clearly, most drivers who are observed by a uniformed police officer going 50 miles over the speed limit would be immediately ticketed, and possibly arrested for reckless driving. This is especially so if, like Toles, they are crossing multiple lanes on the Capital Beltway, not immediately stopping in response to multiple police lights and sirens, and acting belligerently toward police, who felt the need to draw their weapons in response to the traffic stop.

For the county police to suggest that the issuance of a warning under such circumstances is "consistent with the typical discretion applied by police officers to speeding motorists" defies logic.

Toles released a statement shortly after the incident, stating that she "consider[s] moving violations serious matters," that she regrets the incident, and that she intends to pay the $90 ticket for the unsafe lane change. She later said she would temporarily give up her county vehicle and also take a driver safety course.

Toles is no stranger to serious traffic violations

Based on her driving record over the past couple of years, the public has ample reason to question whether Toles genuinely regards moving violations as "serious matters."

On August 5, 2010, Toles pled guilty in Upper Marlboro District Court to making an unsafe lane change on March 31, 2010, at Martin Luther King Jr. Hwy and Greenleaf Road. She paid a $90 fine. This is the exact same charge for which she received a ticket in the February 22, 2012 incident.

On April 1, 2011, Toles pled guilty in Hyattsville District Court to driving off the roadway while passing a vehicle on September 7, 2010, at the Capital Beltway and Pennsylvania Avenue. She also pled guilty to failing to display her registration card upon demand by the police during that same incident. She paid a total of $150 in fines.

In both of those 2010 instances, court records reflect that Toles' driver's license was temporarily suspended for several weeks, prior to her guilty pleas, after the councilmember failed to appear in court to answer the charges.

Justice and fair play require that Toles face charges

After the Jack and Leslie Johnson scandals, the last thing Prince George's County needs is for another of its public officials to get away with gaming the system by trading on their political office.

Two days before Toles was stopped by police, another driver killed herself and injured 4 others in a horrendous crash. She was driving similar 100+ mph speeds on Martin Luther King Jr. Highway. Like Toles, the driver in that fatal incident was a repeat traffic offender. Indeed, she actually had received a ticket on January 22 for traveling 91 mph in a 55 mph zone—which is 14 mph less than Toles' alleged speed on February 22.

Toles knew exactly what she was doing when she belligerently and repeatedly identified herself as a county councilmember after leading police on a high-speed chase. She wanted to intimidate the police into not charging her with serious traffic violations. And in that effort, she has been successful—at least up to this point.

Based on the police officer accounts that have been reported thus far, there appears to be ample probable cause to support charging Toles with multiple serious traffic violations arising out of the February 22 incident, including but not limited to reckless driving, fleeing or eluding police, and obstruction of justice.

Police claim that one of the reasons the ticketing officer did not cite Toles for exceeding the speed limit initially was that the officer had no radar, had not properly calibrated his speedometer, and did not have time to pace her actual speed while giving chase. However, the determination of Toles's precise speed is not an essential element to either of the above charges.

Under Maryland's point system, a conviction on these traffic charges could result in mandatory suspension or revocation of Toles's license, in addition to any other applicable fines or jail time.

The Prince George's County Police have said they will review the situation and may charge Toles with additional violations. Hopefully, Chief Mark Magaw, Assistant Chief Kevin Davis (301-772-4740), and the rest of the executive review panel will take this opportunity to do the right thing and charge the council member in the same manner as any other driver would have been charged under similar circumstances.

If the police don't do their job, then it is up to the State's Attorney's Office to protect the interests of Maryland's citizens in Prince George's County. The office's District Court Division, headed by Chief Mary Brennan (304-952-3967) and Assistant Chief Michael Glynn (301-952-2875), is ultimately responsible for prosecuting misdemeanor crimes in Prince George's. That office should not hesitate to pursue these charges directly if the county police department lacks the political will.

Once properly charged, Councilmember Toles should be afforded all the constitutional protections and presumptions that any other criminal defendant would have under our justice system—including the presumption of innocence, the right to a jury trial, and the requirement that the state prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Repeated reckless driving on Maryland's roads is, to use Karen Toles's own description, a very "serious matter." Nearly 600 people die each year in Maryland as a result of automobile crashes. If the police saw the councilmember engaging in such conduct on February 22, as multiple media reports suggest, they should not turn a blind eye toward that conduct, and neither should the State's Attorney's Office.

In America—including in Prince George's County—no one, regardless of their position in government, should be above the law.