Proposed DC Comprehensive Plan Amendments

-- Vision for Growing an Inclusive City and Vision Policy Papers
-- 2006 Comprehensive Plan
-- Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process

I didn't write super exhaustive policy papers because at one level I am resentful of having to write such proposals "for free." It's a lot of work, and the Office of Planning has spent hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars on consultants for both the creation of the Comprehensive Plan as well as the Planning Processes Study and yet there are massive gaps in the final products. Amendments were due today, by 5pm.

I realized while reading through the plan that I suppose I could have submitted at least one dozen more amendments to strengthen or clarify various sections, but it was enough as it was.

So, what did I propose? Some "simple" stuff and some more complicated philosophical-theoretical constructs...

Simple Stuff

1. Add two words to a section on industrial land use, to extend to the CM (not just the M) category greater protections for industrial uses.

Non-industrial users, especially schools (charter schools) and churches, can outbid industrial users on noneconomic considerations. Only 1% of the city's total land is zoned industrial, and the CM category allows typical commercial use (retail, office, even housing), while the M use only allows industrial use, not any other commercial or civic use. By not discouraging competing uses in the CM category, which is the dominant industrial zoning category, real industrial users (production, distribution, repair) still get outbid.

An alternative suggestion was requiring 50% to 100% of ground floor use remain industrial on a lot. That would allow for nonindustrial users, but only if they utilize air rights.

2. I proposed changing the language in the Transportation Demand Management section of the Transportation Element to specifically require transportation demand management--especially a shift away from automobile use, for neighborhoods, districts (which I did not define), institutions (which I did not fully define -- think schools, universities, churches, hospitals, etc.), commercial enterprises of a certain size and/or type, and multiunit residential buildings.

While you can read the section as it currently exists and think that TDM is required, it's not clear, and in any case, the Office of Planning and the Department of Transportation assert that they can't impose TDM planning requirements, other than for new "planned unit development" actions--something that I got required in the Comp. Plan in the 2006 revision process (even at the first draft of the plan it was suggested not required).

Hence the suggested change.

3. Another "simple" change was suggesting that the entire section of the Land Use Element on "Transit Oriented Development and Corridors" be rewritten to de-emphasize the sole focus on development around transit stations and focus instead on targeting land uses to those places best able to meet the transportation demand they are likely to generate through extant transportation infrastructure, with transit being the foremost preference, but also considering the street network.

In short, many institutional uses are considered "matter of right" in an entire zoning district, but the reality is that depending on the transportation demand generated by the use, locating such uses anywhere in a zone, without considering the street network or the quality and type of transit service, disserves residents.

The method for measuring this is laid out in this paper, "Utrecht: 'ABC' Planning as a planning instrument in urban transport policy" and the method uses the following classification system:

A localities are places with excellent public transport and poor car accessibility. These localities are typically suitable for offices with a large number of employees and many visitors. The sites have to be within 600 m of a national or regional railway interchange or within 400 m of a high quality tram or bus stop; not more than 10 minutes ride from a national railway station and a good connection to park & ride facilities at the outskirts of the city has to be available. Within this category is a further distinction between AI and AII locations. An AI location has to have be directly adjacent to a railway station whereas an AII location does not.

B localities are places with a good public transport as well as good car accessibility. These locations are characteristically chosen for offices and institutions with a large number of employees which depend partly on car journeys for professional reasons. Such sites are within 400 m of a high quality tram or bus stop and no more than 5 minutes ride from a regional railway station. In addition, they have to be within 400 m of a main road connected to a national highway. BI, BII, and BIII locaities have to be defined according to needs of organisations in the area (e.g. parking facilities are attuned to encourage minimum use of cars).

C localities are places with poor public transport and excellent car accessibility. In particular, such sites are suitable for car-dependent companies like hauliers, couriers or other industries. These sites are within 1000 m of a direct connection to a national highway. C locations are normally situated in the outskirts of metropolitan areas.

4. I also proposed taking out the section on Tourism promotion from the Economic Development element, and instead making this its own separate, albeit linked, element in the Comp. Plan. These elements are under-addressed in the current system.

For example, last week I wrote about why it matters that the director of the DC Convention and Visitors Bureau (which is called DestinationDC) said that it was ok that Disney is building a hotel in Prince George's County, that the city needs to have an accommodations development plan, and yet, such a provision is listed in the Economic Development element. But it doesn't seem to be important. Therefore, let's separate out this entire section. and set up a development and management infrastructure for tourism that puts the city first and foremost in the context of the regional tourism environment.

Theoretical proposals

1. Creating what I call Leading elements. While the Framework element outlines the vision behind the Comprehensive Plan, technically all the elements are considered equal, and the Land Use element is first among equals.

But, because, as the introduction to the blog states:

A community’s physical form, rather than its land uses, is its most intrinsic and enduring characteristic;

instead I suggest that the Framework, Urban Design, Transportation, and Economic Development elements should be designated the guiding or leading elements of the Comprehensive Plan, because in toto the overall urban form (morphology) and context is more important than the land use specifically, that if we have the right urban design, transportation, and economic policies in place, they shape land use, rather than land use shaping those elements.

Land use does shape urban design currently, but not in ways that we should be happy about.

2. Alternatively, I proposed something different, the creation of a new framework for the Comprehensive Plan, designed to recognize the fact that the Comprehensive Land Use plan is the closest thing DC has to a vision-mission statement and a business plan, and to reorganize the plan accordingly along these lines:

- Leading Elements;
- Citywide Elements (the rest of the elements as currently in the plan, minus the newly designated leading elements);
- Public Finance, Capital Assets and Budget, and Agency Management Elements, to better link finance and capital improvements policies and funding to the Vision and Mission of the city, and to get agencies to begin to act as if they are part of a larger whole; and
- Area Elements (as exist currently, no change);
(Plus the Federal Elements which the National Capital Planning Commission is responsible for).

3. But separately I then had to write about the need to create these elements: Public Finance, Capital Assets and Budget, and Agency Management Elements.

4. And I also suggested that a new element on Civic Engagement be added to the City-wide elements, to better link the polity and its constituent parts: the citizens both as leaders and as the governed; elected officials; and the various agencies of the government.

I needed to write a big thought paper on that, but I didn't have the energy. I came across this paper though which you might find interesting, "Democracy and city life."


It will be very interesting to see how they react to these suggestions. Obviously the change in the theoretical construct of the Comp Plan isn't likely to happen as part of this amendment process.

But maybe the TDM and ABC and industrial land amendments will go through. And the rest of these ideas will sit out there and hopefully begin to shape people's thinking on these issues.

-------------
Still, it's worth sitting down and reading all the many hundreds of pages of at least the Citywide Elements. It's written pretty well, even if there are tons of gaps and the sections of the plan and the sections of the elements are often not congruent and reciprocal. (As I say, all the elements should be consistent with the goals and vision, and each of the policies and actions of the elements should "cascade" from the goals.)

-- Volume 1: Acknowledgements, Introduction and Citywide Elements

But I can't say it isn't somewhat of a chore.

Marketing works best when you have something to offer

In line with the previous entry on Artomatic and commodification of the arts as a promotional technique for business districts, I have written quite a bit over the years on "creative class," creative economy, and knowledge economy issues.

At the root of it is more Jane Jacobs, not Death and Life, but her next two books, Economy of Cities and Cities and the Wealth of Nations. The latter two books are based on her understanding of how innovation and economic development work, starting with the realization that new businesses need cheap space, a diverse and intelligent workforce, and an interesting place where these and other assets come together. (This is the root of what are called agglomeration economies.)

But it's not merely marketing and branding. It's about substance.

I am rushing, writing a bunch of proposed amendments to the DC Comprehensive Plan. (They are due by 5 pm.) I'll write about them after I finish, but in skimming the Economic Development element, I came across this statement:

Action ED-1.3.B: Branding Washington as a Creative Hub

Develop a marketing and branding campaign that establishes a stronger identity for the District of Columbia as a center for creativity and innovation, capitalizing on established institutions such as the city’s museums, think tanks, arts establishments, universities, and media industries. 705.11

The environment of a creative hub is far more than a marketing or branding campaign. It's having a set of policies that support innovation. It's creating an environment where independent inquiry and business can thrive.

I joke that DC's municipal government is a case of where big government (the federal government) has trickled down and shaped little government, in this case the local municipal government, in its image.

While certain parts of the U.S. Government have been known for their support of inquiry and innovation (starting with the US Department of Agriculture Extension Service in the 1860s--the Extension Service is the basis of the field of community development and community economic development), by and large, it's more about stifling the new in favor of investment in the old.

I don't feel people in DC government, especially elected (and many appointed) officials, have a basic understanding of how what I call "innovation ecologies" really work.

It happens that this is a personal interest, as almost 30 years ago, I happened upon the classic book in the field Diffusion of Innovations...

More later, and see some of the blog entries retrieved using this search.

Arts-based revitalization, community building, network strengthening, commodification, and Artomatic

I have been meaning to write about the irony of Artomatic's being commodified by business improvement districts looking for publicity and attention and verve. Artomatic is the massive temporary arts exhibit involving more than 1,000 artists, and is currently located about one block from the Nationals Baseball Stadium in Southeast DC.

If you have read Jane Jacobs' Death and Life of the Great American City, the point she made about "a large stock of old buildings" as being essential to the vitality of center cities has to do with the economics of property and the economics of innovation, not because she was a historic preservationist.

Old buildings are paid off and their running costs are relatively low compared to new construction. Almost by definition, the creative types, people with ideas, are short of funds and have to husband their resources, and need access to low cost spaces in order to seed innovation.

That's why arts "districts" and revitalization efforts tend to be in less popular and less attractive and less valuable, even "blighted" places, like old industrial districts that have lost their cachet due to deindustrialization and the depopulation of center cities. Places like Brooklyn, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, and to some extent Philadelphia are known for this. See:

-- Social Impact of the Arts Project - University of Pennsylvania
-- Cultivating “Natural” Cultural Districts
-- Penn Avenue Arts Initiative (Pittsburgh)
-- The Station North Arts and Entertainment District, Baltimore, Maryland

So you expect that these places will look like this:

Greenpoint, a traditionally Polish neighborhood in Brooklyn, is drawing in younger residents. Unaffected by the recent building boom in neighboring Williamsburg, Greenpoint is full of low-rise buildings. A group pauses to listen to music pouring out of a loft space on North 15th Street.Photo: Jessica Dimmock for The New York Times

Not like this:

Above: Redeveloping Capitol Riverfront District, along 1st Street SE. Below: M Street SE, looking eastward.



Although there is no question that as the areas get "tamed" by the artists and become popular, often artists get displaced in favor of more profitable uses, and by people with more money able to outbid the creatives.

The dissatisfying aspect of DC is how it is such a good example of Jane Jacobs' thinking about urban economics and strong real estate markets. Because of the building height restriction and the fact that DC was never very industrial a la cities like Detroit, there is a limited stock of large old buildings to begin with, but there is a constant vortex of "space reproduction" and expansion of the central business district in ways that mostly tear down old warehouse type buildings in favor of faceless office buildings and the conversion of the old buildings that remain into high rent office space, such as the buildings depicted below.

The first is the Old Judd & Detwiler printing plant and the second is the warehouse for the now defunct department store chain, Woodward & Lothrop, both on 1st Street NE. The former is rented to Sirius Satellite. The latter is mostly rented to federal agencies such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Photo by Dan Malouff.



So it's ironic that business improvement districts in Crystal City, NoMA and now the "Capitol Riverfront" have used Artomatic to promote their commercial districts, which are designed to do everything that they can that is counter to Jane Jacobs basic points of supporting diversity in urban settings, by building at the expense of diversity expensive housing, office, and retail space, and reproducing space away from just about anything that might be innovative or supportive of the creative class and the producing artist.

Artomatic needs space, and this is one of its only options. But organizationally they are getting used. And they need to figure out how to leverage this temporary access into something more permanent. In other words, if you're getting used, get something out of it that is more permanent than temporary, more than just a bit of publicity.

It is incredibly ironic that the Washington Sculpture Center and the Washington Glass School were located about one block away from where Artomatic is located in 2009, on what is the "third base" in the brand spanking new Washington Nationals Baseball Stadium.

Today, the Glass School is in warehouse space in Mount Rainier, Maryland in the Gateway Arts District there, and the Washington Sculpture Center is defunct.


For more about this, see the past blog entries "More Arts Displacement" from 2006 and "Arts vs. arts-plus for commercial district revitalization" from 2008.

Also I find these efforts, the Free Range project in London, and the Reno Artown festival to be a bit more broad minded (see the AP story "Reno's Artown fest: All of July, and mostly free"), more focused on leveraging an event to build and strengthen an arts community.

This reminds me about something that the Center for Science in the Public Interest did to reposition the organization in the late 1970s. CSPI is a nutrition and health advocacy group. From 1975-1977, the organization sponsored "Food Day," an annual event from 1975-1977, "spawning thousands of activities around the country concerning nutrition, hunger, and agribusiness. There were newspaper articles and television programs, rallies in city parks, a book, even a healthy White House buffet dinner."

But the organization figured out that they spent the entire year organizing for one day, and that it was difficult to build a broader movement around a brief albeit active moment. So they stopped doing food day and repositioned around nutrition advocacy and more organized and directed social change activities. (In the mid 1980s they went through another repositioning which led to the organization developing one of the most stable funding bases in the U.S. nonprofit community.)

Artomatic is cool. But building a real "creative community," not one that is important to business only to the point where it can be commodified and the marginal return to real estate profit remains positive is not something that Artomatic seems to be focused on. (Also see "Cultural resources planning in DC: In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king" from 2007.)

Barbara Kruger: Selfridges campaign; "Buy me I'll change your life" and "You want it you buy it you forget it."

Dupont Circle and Summer Streets

Aerial view of Dupont Circle
Originally uploaded by rllayman

In the previous entry on ideas for Summer Streets--a program where streets are temporarily closed to vehicular traffic in favor of feet-based (walking and bicycling) activities (based on programs elsewhere such as in NYC and Bogota)--I said that DC should focus on the easy wins, rather than try to do this in places where the underlying conditions aren't supportive.

Commenter smax took the entry to task, writing:

I'm not sure if I agree with your "walk before you can run" statement. If Dupont circle did this for six hours on a sunday (say, the circle and connecticuit avenue to R street or something), I would venture to guess that turnout would be fantastic.

While I think that s/he and I were arguing different sides of the same point, I think smax's point needs to be called out and better acknowledged. Such an event in Dupont Circle would be wildly successful.

And in DC (and most places) programs like this need to start with the "easy victory" of wild success, rather than the hardest attempts.

In my opinion, typical neighborhood residents are pretty resistant to most types of change or experimentation.

They need to see it in action in order to be able to comprehend and consider it. Ken F. attributes this to the fact that from a Jungian personality types perspective a la the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, most people are "sensing" types and according to the webpage The Myers-Briggs Sensing Preference:

tend to be concerned with what is actual, present, current, and real. ...
Sensing types are often good at seeing the practical applications of ideas and things, and may learn best when they can first see the pragmatic side of what is being taught. For sensing types, experience speaks louder than words or theory.

Starting a pro-walking-fitness-bicycling program with wild success is the best way to get normally resistant DC residents/activists to clamor for the offering of such a program in their own neighborhoods.

-- New York Summer Streets program webpage

1924 image of Dupont Circle, before the park was diminished in size in favor of wider streets.

Washington Metropolitan transit leadership

(This entry was written in response to some of the discussion about the DC transit system in the current issue of themail, the twice weekly local e-letter on good government issues.)

WMATA

Erik Gaull is right that DC pays a disproportionate share of the cost of WMATA, but he doesn't say why. It's because the funding formula is based on the number of stations present in the jurisdiction, and DC has 40 stations (Friendship Heights is just across the border) of the 86 stations total. I believe that funding should be based not just on the destination station, but on the destination of the rider, and this would rebalance the funding formula somewhat, and the surrounding jurisdictions would end up paying a bit more, and DC a bit less.

In any case, people's focus on dedicated funding is important, but misses the point. Many transit systems across the country that rely on dedicated funding (e.g., Chicago, Boston, NYC) suffer when tax receipts (usually sales taxes and real estate transfer taxes) decline, which is usually the case during a recession, and is so now.

No transit system generates enough money from operations to pay for both capital improvements and operations. This is the case even with dedicated funding, at least based on the examples in the U.S. where dedicated funding streams are provided to transit systems.

People can criticize WMATA for not replacing 1000 series cars (although the issue of the likely failed circuit is far more important), but no one, including the NTSB, ever came up with the $1 billion necessary to do so.

Since the 1950s, U.S. transportation policy has favored automobility and it has been very difficult to get federal assistance for transit development and expansion, even while the federal government has provided a significant share of the construction money for the WMATA system.

The cascading problems for mobility that resulted from the crash last week (and will continue for some time while the system is run in manual mode, decreasing maximum speed by about 40%) demonstrates the centrality and relative efficiency of the subway system when it is working well and the problems that result when it is not.

The Washington Post can editorialize for dedicated funding (as it did today), but at the same time in the region it is the most consistent proponent for highway funding (Wilson Bridge, Springfield Interchange, Inter County Connector, toll lanes, etc.).

But a focus on automobility comes at great costs to the region's livability and the chewing up of once undeveloped land. And it's inefficient. One track of the subway can move 30,000 to 40,000 people per hour, while a one mile of highway moves about 1,600 to 2,200 cars in the same period.

In any case, the operation of the WMATA transit system can not be taken for granted, and there is no question that its leadership and oversight be evaluated and addressed as much as there are calls for dedicated funding.

As long as board members (appointed by their respective jurisdictions) focus on more picayunish and political concerns, the region and the riders are inadequately served. The crash and the aftermath should steel the resolve of citizens to demand better.

As far as DC residents are concerned, we must recognize that the city's competitive advantage and livability is dependent in large part on a smoothly functioning transit system, which gets people around quickly, and significantly reduces traffic on our streets, preserves demand for living here, and helps to attract and retain businesses.

This means that DC needs to manage our transit interests in two dimensions, for "ourselves" and for our region, because the relative attractiveness of the city is in part dependent on the regional dimensions of the transit system.

In 2003, WMATA devolved transit expansion planning to the jurisdictions. So it's up to DC to ensure that its interests are represented. To me, that means that transit expansion in the suburbs needs to be complemented with transit expansion in the core of the region, within DC, specifically adding capacity and redundancy to the system where it is needed, such as with the proposed separated blue line.

That line provided another crossing from Rosslyn, service to Georgetown, and a parallel line of service and stations in the core of the city. (Washington Post graphic provided courtesy of Post journalist Lyndsay Layton.)

Recent proposals by Representatives Connolley and Moran from Virginia to extend the WMATA system further into Northern Virginia suburbs (as well as frequent proposals to extend the green line north and south further into Maryland), without taking the time to consider how this impacts DC and the capacity in the core of the system is seriously shortsighted. (This was discussed in this blog entry: Planning subway expansion in a coordinated and planned fashion.)

But it will be addressed only if DC residents demand that DC transit interests are represented simultaneously with suburban interests. We can't and shouldn't expect the suburban politicians to represent DC.

This map was produced for me by David Alpert of Greater Greater Washington. It shows the original separated blue line, but in this conception it is colored silver as it is reconceptualized as an extension, including adding an additional river crossing, of the Dulles subway line extension (which is how it should have been planned to begin with).

It also shows the "brown line" which was conceived by Michael S., a Dupont Circle resident-advocate, although the line was reconceptualized by comments from readers and myself. The "problem" with the brown line is that it is proposed to serve an area which doesn't have the kind of density that heavy rail investments need in order to be justified, although this week especially, the idea shows a way to provide redundancy to the transit system.

Note also a separate proposal for a separated yellow line as published last week in "Imagine a separate Yellow Line," in Greater Greater Washington. Be sure to read the discussion, as there are some interesting counter-proposals and conceptualizations provided by thoughtful readers in the discussion thread.

Conceptual map for transit expansion in the DC region with a focus on subway service expansion within the District of Columbia.

A future grocery shopper at the reopening of Washington's Eastern Market

A future grocery shopper at the reopening of Washington's Eastern Market
Originally uploaded by rllayman

Looking southward to Downtown, from 13th Street near Cardozo High School in Columbia Heights

Looking southward to Downtown, from 13th Street near Cardozo High School in Columbia Heights
Originally uploaded by rllayman

If you ever wonder why space is so contested in Columbia Heights?

It's the views. Now that it feels safer, people with choice want to live there, to be close to things, to have access to amenities, and transit, and to be able to walk around in a nice neighborhood and have attractive vistas.

I worked on the 2000 Census, and in 1999 probably there was a lot of controversy about rental property building violations and a step up in enforcement, which led to many tenants being kicked out of what were termed uninhabitable locations.

When I worked on the Census, one of the buildng complexes I had to go in, I think was the Clifton Apartments. Now the Clifton Lofts are market rate housing. Then over what 6 buildings, there were about 40 tenanted apartments. Clearly, the buildings were being warehoused for conversion to market rate housing.

Why?

The views. And Columbia Heights is close to Downtown and other attractive locations in NW DC...

Walking around those apartment buildings put the code enforcement actions into a new light for me...

What's the matter with Kansas (Avenue)?

(With apologies to Thomas Frank...)

The Northwest Current should really be called the West Northwest Current because for the most part it isn't distributed east of Georgia Avenue, so I don't always read it, although I have recently learned that the pdfs are now available online.

Recent issues have had a story and editorial about the Dept. of Parks and Recreation proposal to close a few blocks of Kansas Avenue NW on one Sunday, I think in August, in order to create a New York City like "Summer Streets" program, which is modeled after the Ciclovia program in Bogota, where streets are closed on Sundays, and people walk, bike, exercise, etc. in the streets, rather than leave streets as the more or less exclusive domain of automobiles and trucks.

Apparently ANC4 was negative because it would impact driving on the street, going to Church, etc. Since the Current Newspapers website seems to be down at the moment I can't find and provide the details, direct citations and quotes that I would normally include. But the editorial in the Current agreed that closing the street was a bad idea. It was for one Sunday, and probably proposed closing the street from Georgia Avenue eastwards to Sherman Circle and beyond.

Now, it happens that I am a bit leery of summer streets like programs in DC, not because I don't believe in feet first programming, but because for these programs to really work, you have to have a lot of participation, and population density. The fact is that this area isn't that dense and is somewhat spread out. It's not the ideal place to launch such a project, if you want to ensure a successful launch.

But I am still distressed by the negativity in general, about closing the street. I do see a slight problem resulting from impact on the routing of the 62 bus line, and that bus is the only bus providing north-south service between Georgia Avenue and Blair Road, in the area between the Takoma and Petworth stations.

But it happens that the concern about blocking traffic, except for a couple churches, which have alternative routes, is pretty much laughable.

It happens that now that I live in upper northwest, Kansas Avenue is one of the major bicycle "highways" I use to get to Downtown, via either Georgia Avenue or 13th Street, and beyond, because it makes for efficient moving about the city from where I live. I ride on this street at a variety of times of day including at night and on weekends.

Kansas Avenue has bike lanes for a goodly section and it barely has any traffic (even though a guy in a car once screamed at me from across the street, then turned around after me and threatened me a couple blocks down because he seemed to have a problem with bicyclists), few pedestrians, and it's served between Georgia Avenue and 5th Street NW by the 62/63 busline.

Here are a couple photos, one looking eastward towards Sherman Circle, the other westward towards Georgia Avenue, taken around 6pm last night (Thursday). This level of traffic is minimal and typical for this street.



Westward view.

The concerns people have expressed about major imposition are groundless.

Nonetheless, I think that aping the Summer Streets program is a bit grandiose. What the city needs to do is "walk before it starts to run." In my bike plan, "Ideas for making bicycling irresistible in DC," I suggest that each ward have an annual Ward bicycle ride, modeled after the BikeArlington event. We need to do ward bike rides at least once/year, and ward walks every month. From that point we can step it up to Summer Streets.

Here's what I wrote in that plan. Of course, it's focused on bicycling, but the concepts can easily be scaled up to include walking and health promotion programs.

Ward/Neighborhood bicycling enhancement

• Rate all neighborhoods in terms of their capacity to support bicycling including topography, distance to amenities and other destinations, location of schools and parks, etc. (Could use DCOP’s 37 planning areas for the organizing framework for this activity.)

• Create (relatively simple) subplans of the Bicycle Master Plan for neighborhoods-ANCs-Wards and develop programs to enhance bicycling within neighborhoods based on this assessment.
Create programs that are fine-tuned to local conditions, rather than one-size-fits-all programs that will fail if implemented in places with unfavorable conditions.

• Create focused programs to engage demographic segments under-represented in the ranks of bicyclists: children; families; disabled (London has specific programs); seniors, people who speak English as a Second Language (ESL), low-income, etc.

• Ensure that bicycling promotion programs provide information, focused outreach, and assistance to various ESL demographics.

• DDOT and DCOP have ward planners. (And DPR has Ward coordinators for Recreation Centers and programs.) Add a new position of Bicycle and Pedestrian Ward Planner to DDOT for each ward. (This could be funded all or in part by the TEA grant. Or part of the funding for these positions could be local – for the non-bicycling portion—and be considered local match, if required.

• Develop stronger civic engagement/volunteer programs. Non-government employee bicyclists can serve as “ambassadors,” mentors, and “buddies” to move people along the path from occasional rider to daily bicyclist.

• Community-neighborhood cycling enhancement grants (London). This is a small grants program (up to $10,000) supporting various projects. Could be run in coordination with ANCs. Some ANCs have Transportation and Public Space Committees (ANC6A, ANC6C), which would be logical partners.

• Annual neighborhood and/or ward rides, comparable to BikeArlington and Alexandria but on a smaller scale. This can be complemented with the development of a BikeDC annual ride, comparable to that offered by BikeArlington.

• Create neighborhood bicycle tours with online and printed maps. Partner with DestinationDC and CulturalTourismDC to do this.

Why the Disney hotel at National Harbor is something to worry about

A long time ago I wrote a blog entry about the Walmart business model ("Jumping in bed with the devil--it's hot, but will you survive the heat?"). In the old days, department stores were content to not sell a customer "everything," so a complementary commercial district was able to coexist around department stores, which served as "anchors," attracting customers to the district, customers who not only shopped at the department stores but at the surrounding stores, restaurants, service businesses, and even cinemas and other entertainments.

The Walmart model is different. They want you to spend every dollar that you spend on consumer goods and services in their store. There is no place for other stores adjacent to their own, because as far as Walmart is concerned, their customer has no reason to shop anywhere else. 50% of U.S. residents visit Walmart weekly.

A worker brings carts back into a Walmart store in Westminster, Colorado August 14, 2008. REUTERS/Rick Wilking


Department stores like Woodward & Lothrops anchored downtown's retail district, leaving room for other stores, especially on F Street and 7th Street. (F Street in the 1950s is pictured below.)


The article about National Harbor in Wednesday's New York Times, "A Resort Downriver From Washington," reminds me that I have been meaning to write about this in terms of tourism and competition for business between various destinations in the Washington region.

Consuming "Washington" indoors and/or on the National Harbor "campus". Daniel Rosenbaum for The New York Times. The Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center has an 18-story glass atrium and 2,000 rooms.

Sadly, the National Harbor convention-resort development in Prince George's County is designed more along the Walmart model than the old department store model. Sure, National Harbor is close to Washington, DC, the nation's capital and one of the nation's leading tourist destinations, but at the end of the day, the proprietors of the businesses there, the developer, and Gaylord National Resorts, the primary manager of the property, want you to stay on-site 24/7 and spend all of your dollars allocated for travel on a trip to "Washington" there and no where else.

So in short, I disagree with the head of DC's convention and visitors bureau (called DestinationDC), that the Disney Resort hotel benefits Washington, DC proper. See "Tourism officials: Disney at National Harbor good for region" from the Washington Business Journal. From the article:

Tourism and hospitality leaders throughout the D.C. area say they are excited for the potential boon a planned Walt Disney Co. resort hotel could bring to the region, with District officials unconcerned that the project will draw business away from the city’s convention center. Disney plans to build a 500-room hotel resort on 15 acres at National Harbor in Prince George’s County.

Bill Hanbury, CEO of Destination D.C., said the Disney move will mean a new market for the city — from visiting families familiar with the brand and from the resort-going community.

“At the end of the day, they’ll be here because they want to visit D.C.,” Hanbury said. Hanbury said he does not believe the Walter E. Washington Convention Center will suffer from Disney’s presence in Prince George’s County, whether it be from conventions booking with Disney or the Gaylord National Resort, also at National Harbor.

“From a convention perspective, we’re from different markets — people come to the convention center when they want an urban, pre-eminent convention facility,” Hanbury said.

Instead, Disney aims to process your "Washington" experience for you, with their guides, taking you to the free places (the Smithsonian Museums) but charging you for it, and taking you back to National Harbor to spend your money on food, hotel, and sundries. All the tourism tax benefits (sales tax, meals tax, hotel tax, parking tax, rental car tax) end up in Maryland.

I don't see how that's good for "the region" or for Washington, DC proper. I do see how that's good for Maryland and for Disney and for the owners of the National Harbor development.

And DC needs to consider why it is that the city--which is one of the biggest destinations in the country for families and for adolescents on class trips--isn't competitive in terms of providing hotel rooms to those market segments. (I know why, but it's the business of DestinationDC to expand and extend the competitiveness of the city's "tourism offer" not to tout expansions of the tourism offer in Maryland. It's their job to address the problem. Not mine, even though I will be offering an amendment to the Comp Plan next week, calling for the development of an element on Tourism Development and Management.)

DC must not let itself get outmarketed by the Walmart model.

Transit redundancy

One of the reasons that I have been a strong proponent of the separated blue line proposal (by WMATA in 2001) is that it adds capacity and redundancy to the subway system in the core of the city.

Certainly the crippling of red line service, the most heavily used subway line of the 5 in the WMATA system, due to the crash earlier in the week demonstrates this.

Conceptualization of tunneling for the Tysons extension (Silver Line) by the Tysons Tunnel organization introduced the concept of double stacked tunnels, which I think should be considered for a separate blue line.


And even Michael S's "brown line" proposal, which has been modified from his original as indicated in the conceptual map I use in my transportation wish list compilation.

Map graciously produced by David Alpert of Greater Greater Washington.

But with regard to redundancy and transit optimality, I hate to admit that when we were house shopping, sometimes I let my like/love of a house temporarily trump transit considerations.

While we didn't state it at the time, we ended up looking for an area with easy access to the subway (where we live is just under 1 mile to the Takoma station, an easy and attractive walk over flat terrain), but there is also a bus line about three blocks away which provides service between Takoma and Petworth stations all the time, and service to and from downtown during rush periods (as well as basic amenities such as supermarkets and other retail and restaurants). While Suzanne likes to ride the bus home from work for added decompression time, we don't ride the bus very often otherwise, except this week, due to the disruptions on the red line... And the service is very convenient and reasonably reliable.

Forgetting something key about dedicated funding streams for transit

They too are not inviolate. Tax receipts can go down. Typically, real estate transfer taxes and sales taxes are used to fund transit systems. The financial problems experienced by the Chicago Transit Authority "CTA president says specifics on cuts unknown" from the Chicago Tribune), the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority ("The tax that fails the T" from the Boston Globe), and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in the New York City region ("Why the MTA Is Broken" from the Indypendent) are all due to falling tax receipts.

(And note that unlike DC, which is funding Circulator routes some of which don't justify the expense, other transit systems are dropping service frequency on routes where it isn't justified, and adding service where it is in demand.)

Still, today's column in the Post by the new Metro columnist Robert McCartney, "Long-Unheeded Metro Pleas Must Be Heard ," about management and funding issues relating to the transit system is better than I expected after his first outing on Sunday, when he wrote that one of the biggest problems in the region is that DC and Maryland aren't building more freeway lanes:

Of course, traffic congestion is the top example of this problem. Political gridlock leads to the highway variety. Consider this: Starting in three years, parts of the Beltway and I-395 in Virginia will be widened with the opening of newfangled toll lanes where you pay more when traffic is heaviest. Maryland and the District, however, aren't yet planning to add similar lanes on their sides of the American Legion and 14th Street bridges. Sound like a recipe for more bottlenecks?

Despite Monday's tragedy, the solution to congestion is reducing the number of automobile trips, not increasing or encouraging more automobile trips. Transit is the way to go.

"Spectacular shopping," Chinatown advertising, digital billboard, Gallery Place, DC

"Spectacular shopping," Chinatown advertising, digital billboard, Gallery Place, DC
Originally uploaded by rllayman

When I saw this (and a listing of an ice cream shop as one of the amazing restaurants) I thought about how when the West Elm store opened downtown that Mayor Fenty said that DC has the best retail shopping environment in the U.S.

Good thing such claims aren't subject to Federal Trade Commission guidelines for truth in advertising.

Environmental mumbo-jumbo -- green limosine services in Alexandria...

Environmental mumbo-jumbo -- green limosine services in Alexandria...
Originally uploaded by rllayman

I think I am going to go crazy at "honest" dissembling, such as seeing an ad in Vanity Fair for cigarettes made with organic tobacco (note: organic tobacco isn't a protectant against lung cancer and other diseases) and seeing a Mercedes in Old Town Alexandria branded as environmentally correct. It turns out it is from some firm, Enviroride, a company that "provide[s] dependable transportation service to environmentally conscious individuals."

RIDE TRANSIT. WALK. BICYCLE.

I was in Alexandria to hear Robert Gibbs do a presentation on fixing the retail environment on King Street. He's one of the nation's leading retail planners, although much of his work is done for developers.

I think he missed some important things (although it's good to know that I still have some concepts that will extend best practices thinking and approaches to commercial district revitalization).

I understand his focus on parking. After all, he's based in Birmingham, Michigan (the town over from where I went to high school), which had a fabulous traditional downtown (although finally around 2000 it lost its two legacy department stores, which anchored the town in the face of massive competition from malls), but was dependent on the success of the automobile industry for so many decades... He got his start working for the Taubman Company (see "The Terrazzo Jungle" from The New Yorker to understand his background and training.

So I wanted to scream when the shop owners were lamenting about how difficult it is for their workers to find parking, that it costs upwards of $15/day.

Take transit. There is a subway station up the street. And bus service, including a free "circulator" (I should resolve to not call fake buses "trolleys") from the subway station to the attractions along King Street.

For more on what they are doing in Alexandria, see the city webpage on the King Street Retail Strategy.

Eastern Market reopening tomorrow

Eastern Market at night
Originally uploaded by rllayman

DC's Eastern Market public market burned in April 2007 and had to be closed. Fortunately, plans had been underway for some time to undertake a major renovation and money had been set aside for this already. So that money was available to undertake and pay for most of the cost of the post-fire renovation. (Which is why I don't think of Mayor Fenty as the Market's saviour, although I do appreciate all the extraordinary efforts of so many people, in and out of government, who have made the reopening possible.)

Already there has been a fair amount of press coverage of the opening, including this article from the Post, "A Market That's Up: Fire-Ravaged Landmark Of Capitol Hill Was 'Crying for Help.' With Reconstruction, It's Ready to Welcome Customers Old and New." and a portion of yesterday's WAMU radio's Kojo Nnamdi Show, "Eastern Market and D.C.'s Food Culture."

The Market reopens tomorrow with a ribbon cutting at 10:30 am, and there will be all-day festivities on Saturday, including frequent tours.

There is still a lot of unrest on the part of merchants and others in the community over whether or not to continue to close 7th Street between C Street SE and North Carolina Avenue SE on the weekends.

There will be a public meeting about this on Tuesday July 7th at 6:30 PM at Tyler Elementary School at 10th and G Streets SE and I hope phalanxes of public space and placemaking advocates come out in force to that meeting.

And it will take awhile for all the bits and pieces of the final renovation work to be finished, ranging from installing bicycle racks to parking meters to striping parking spaces and so forth.

Still there is a lot to be done. Just as the terrible subway train crash calls our attention to the need to address how the local transit system is managed, led, and funded, the reopening of the public market Eastern Market building needs to be thought of as a midpoint, not an end point, and management and operations and planning for Eastern Market and the area around it must continue to be addressed and reconciled.

(Disclosure: I am on the Eastern Market Community Advisory Committee, which has advisory-oversight responsibilities for the Market.)

Dealing with crime (in DC and elsewhere)

Among the many good posts of late in the Washington City Paper's City Desk blog is this one, "Petworth Shootouts – Possibly Gang Related – Spark More Recriminations Over Defunct Crime Bill."

I say it's good because it calls attention to the posturing by many DC elected officials over particular crimes and the opportunities they provide to support particular claims-ideologies about how to address crime, especially over the recent Fenty "crime bill" touted by people like Harry Jaffe and Jonetta Rose Barras (columnists for the Examiner) -- "Fenty's tough new crime laws could make city safe" (Jaffe), and "Crime coddlers in D.C." (Barras).

I don't understand why most "thinking" people are so clueless when it comes to crime and related policies. I am not a "coddle the criminal" person, but I do understand that we are dealing with systems.

And if you want to understand these systems, if you are a great observer, you can go live in a neighborhood like H Street NE (which I did with about a two year gap, from 1987 to 2004) or Trinidad or Capitol Hill East or Shaw (etc.) and experience it first hand.

But if you don't want to experience multiple break ins, street assaults, and the failure of a marriage, instead you can read two great books by Elijah Anderson, Streetwise and Code of the Street.

A report from the National Institute of Justice released earlier in the year, "The Code of the Street and African-American Violence," confirms the validity of the thesis. And you can watch a video depicting the place he wrote about in Code of the Street, see Down Germantown Avenue. (When I first read it, I thought his description of how Germantown Avenue is in Mount Airy and his travels down into the rougher part of Philadelphia sounded just like H Street NW and NE in DC.)

If you don't want to read the books, how about the original article from 1994 in the Atlantic Monthly, "The Code of the Streets," or this review from the Washington Monthly, "Code Of The Street. - Review." But they do have the book in the DC Central Library, which is where I read it.

Anyway, living on the exact border line between the 1st and 5th police districts in the H Street neighborhood taught me a lot. And one of the things it taught me is that crime isn't only a police problem, something that police commissioner (in Boston, New York City, and now Los Angeles) William Bratton makes clear as well, and his work was based on the "Broken Windows" thesis (see "Broken Windows" also from Atlantic Monthly.

(If readers ever wonder why I am so fixated on eliminating graffiti, litter, and "curing" nuisance property problems not through demolition but by getting the house fixed and habitated, it is because I a strong strong proponent of the Broken Windows thesis and my first hand observation about its applicability, in fact, see one of my earliest blog entries, "Urban Health, Nasty Cities, Broken Windows, and Community Efficacy" for more, including a discussion of the competing "community efficacy" and "broken windows" theses.)

So the "Fenty Crime Bill" likely won't do squat, because it doesn't get at the systems, the root causes and processes of the problem.

From time to time I write about this in terms of the great successful program at reducing "gang" violence that was pioneered in Boston. It's written about in Mother Jones magazine, in "Straight Outta Boston." The New Yorker wrote about this in a recent issue as well, "Don’t Shoot," although the full article is only available to registered users.

And today's Seattle Times has an article about this, "Innovators visit Seattle to describe ways that work to cut gang violence," describing the two different approaches, the Boston approach and the Chicago approach (for more about the latter see "Blocking the Transmission of Violence" from the New York Times Sunday Magazine in 2008).

Both approaches, while using different language from their respective disciplines, address gang violence as if it is an epidemic and use epidemiologic processes (public health approaches) to interdict the vector of violence, focusing on taking out key carriers, either through arrest or suasion, and working to change the embrace of the code of the street.

Now a bunch of DC nonprofit groups have released a report on the problem, see "Report: D.C. must do more to stem youth violence" from the Examiner, but I haven't read the report so I don't know if it makes any decent recommendations. According to the article:

The report urges immediate action by Mayor Adrian Fenty to develop a coordinated response to high-profile youth violence, to assess the city’s capacity to handle the problem, to redirect resources to those areas highest in need and to intervene with the most at-risk youth. Graham said he would introduce emergency legislation next month to address the short-term goals.

In the long term, the report recommends establishing a high-level Gang and Crew Prevention Commission led by a gang czar of sorts, and developing a comprehensive citywide violence-prevention plan. It also suggests numerous actions in the education, health, work force development and justice areas.

Judging by past programs and the relatively incremental non-best practice approaches most typically espoused in DC municipal and nonprofit agencies, I don't expect that the report, A Blueprint for Action, says very much.

I guess I'll have to read it.

Movie (tonight) Vision of the Nation's Capital

Movie (tonight) Vision of the Nation's Capital
Originally uploaded by rllayman

I just got notice of this and I can't attend as there is an Eastern Market board meeting tonight.

If someone sees this and attends, let me know what transpires. I will attempt to find out more about the documentary film.

Another issue with ANCs (the flipside of what I sometimes term "the tyranny of neighborhood parochialism")

I've written about from time to time as well, and I should have mentioned in the previous entry, is the failure of many ANCs to set up an adequate committee structure, and to provide ways for non-elected residents (note the word resident vs. citizen) to participate within the committee structure. ANC6A and ANC6C for example, allow for (and depend upon) resident participation on committees, and even for committees to be chaired by non-elected residents. See "ANCs and civic engagement."

Someone pointed out in response that this removes a certain amount of ANC behavior from electoral oversight. Although someone else countered that citizens only vote for their own particular commissioner.

So this is why Rob's point 1 is reasonable to consider:

1. Modify the structure of Single Member Districts. The SMDs ensure every resident exactly one ANC commissioner to report to, however they suffer the same problem of any geography-based electoral system: diffuse interests are often not represented. (renters, immigrant populations, etc.) For this reason many city councils, including D.C., have at-large seats. The ANC boundaries could remain the same and all commissioners could be elected at-large within the ANC. Or, a compromise option, each ANC could have one at-large commissioner in addition to those elected from SMDs. The number of SMDs could be reduced, or the total number of commissioners in each ANC increased by one.

However, I don't think it really gets at the problem (just like speed bumps are merely pimples on the issue of prevailing driving speeds on residential streets).

A better alternative would be to have people run for both SMD and for ANC officer positions(chair, vice chair, secretary, treasurer) through the general election process. The difference would be that instead of one at-large Commissioner, who would only have one vote out of upwards of 9, all the officers would be elected by the registered voters.

And, the enabling legislation for ANCs should and could be revised to make the vice chair position responsible for "commission development"--training and technical assistance.

I should point out that the proposed legislation to "reform" electoral procedures in DC makes a big mistake by putting ANC elections in the primary election cycle rather than in the general election. See "Fixing the Board of Elections?" in the June 17 issue of themail, the city's leading e-newsletter on good government issues.

Note that in an email exchange in February, ANC1D representative Jack McKay pointed out to me that the ANC enabling legislation allows for non-elected residents to participate on ANC committees. He wrote:

I'm missing something here. You congratulate 6A because it "allows non-electeds to serve as chairs of committees". But that's a legal requirement:

DC Code § 1-309.11(f)
Chairmanship of each Commission committee or task force shall be open to any resident of the Commission area. The chairperson of each such committee or task force shall be appointed by the Commission. Each Commission shall make a good faith effort to involve all segments of the
Commission population in its deliberations regardless of race, sex, age, voting status, religion, economic status, or sexual orientation.

The whole point to committees is to provide a vehicle for residents to participate in ANC activities. I've never heard of an ANC that limited committee membership to commissioners.

I responded:

So it is a legal requirement, but just because it is required doesn't mean the regulation is followed. I am most familiar with ANCs in Wards 5 and 6. Until recently, only ANC6A allowed this in reality. Now ANC6C does too (although from its creation in 2003, it has relied on non-electeds to populate committees, just not to chair committees). It hasn't come to my attention of being "allowed" in any ANC in Ward 5. I haven't heard of it in other wards, but I can't claim to have ever done a full study.

I don't think that any of the Ward 5 ANCs _actively seek_ nonelecteds as committee members. Hmm, maybe 5C does. I know less about it than 5A and 5B. I think 6D does now, but for a long time they didn't even have committees (I blogged about it in 2005). I suppose that it might be the case for 6B, but I never hear a peep from people who aren't commissioners. (I don't pay much attention to 6B efforts, except in the context of Eastern Market.)

And he responded:

Seems to me that, if other ANCs aren't following the DC Code, residents ought to call them on it. But in fact, neither ANC commissioners nor residents know the ANC laws, and our local media pay little attention to ANCs and their possible misfeasance.

Some ANC commissioners misunderstand the role of committees, which is to be a vehicle for resident participation in ANC deliberations. The whole point is for the public to attend, and participate in, committee meetings and discussions, outside of regular ANC meetings. Our ANC has committees, but does not have non-commissioner committee "membership", because the idea is that these meetings should be open to one and all, without favoring any residents as "members". Anyone who wants to attend is welcome, and all are heard, as equals.

This role of ANC committees, which is rather different from the nature of committees of legislatures, is not well explained to, nor understood by, incoming ANC commissioners.

and my response:

I will say the other reason to have citizens on committees, even though your ANC doesn't, is to bring more people on to address responsibly the work that comes up. It's not possible for a handful of commissioners to address all the matters that are generated each month, that come before them based on their geography. In an ANC like 6C, when you have a chunk of downtown, there are always many zoning, alcohol licensing, BZA, and public space matters that demand attention.

Another failure to lead: DC's Advisory Neighborhood Commissions

Scripps Howard newspapers, logo.

With the creation of local government in DC 30 years ago, a form of neighborhood councils was created, called Advisory Neighborhood Commissions. They are advisory, charged with commenting on matters before DC Government Agencies and Commissions. People often confuse the provision on "great weight" in the law with "must", that the DC Government must do what an ANC says. Nope, all the agency or board or commission must do is consider the recommendation, and they must do this in the context of the laws and regulations that exist.

I have written about these bodies quite a bit over the years. I believe in an engaged populace and a more participatory form of representative government. But like any democracy or political body (see Robert Michels and his classic tome first published in 1911, Political Parties, which postulates the "iron law of oligarchy", that organizations becoming oligarchical and autocratic regardless of the intent of their formation), abuse and failure is part of the process. The issue becomes whether abuse and failure is the defining element, or merely an occasional byproduct.

Plus, ANCs were crippled from the start, because a training infrastructure was never developed, and the bodies were forbidden from meeting all together, because the legislative branch feared the creation of other centers of influence, and potential competition for elected office. (Still, ANCs are a training bed for higher office, and jobs with DC government.)

For some of my writings about ANCs and civic engagement include:

- System transformation or people vs. systems and structures
- Contempt of the citizenry
- Stultified vs. flat organizations, democracy vs. autocracy
- ANCs and civic engagement
- "Incentivizing" ANC Commissioners
- An aha! moment about why DC Government is "problematic"
- The Agony of Defeat
- YIMBYs from Brooklyn to DC -- Thinking about Community Participation in Shaping Development"
- ANCs build up political muscle, and yet....

Now, you could probably argue that I am a fool because, in the argot of the old Scripps Newspaper slogan "Give light and the people will find their own way" I have to believe that if we focus on building our capacity for participating knowledgeably and deliberatively in government and civil society, then we will get better outcomes (in short, this is another example of having flawed and incompletely developed systems and structures).

For example, along the lines of what I discuss in "Chile and civic engagement."

So I see the Goodspeed Update's suggestions for improving ANCs, in "Proposals for Reforming D.C.’s Advisory Neighborhood Commissions,":

1. Modify the structure of Single Member Districts.
2. City government should enforce greater transparency and consistency in operations.
3. Reduce the number of ANCs or enlarge SMD sizes.
4. Term Limits for ANC Commissioners.

as pretty limited, focused on formula and procedure and not on substantively addressing the problem and improving the sorry lot. But then "reform" means change. It doesn't necessarily mean improvement.

Here was my response in email:

One of my early thoughts about ANCs is that in one respect they are great, in that they provide for a regularized system of input. OTOH, they contribute to a dimunition of civil society by "governmentalizing" (think of the concept of infantilization and apply it here) how people think of responding to local problems and issues. Everything becomes a matter for government to solve, rather than considering the option of self-help. cf. all the people who have been writing about "communicative planning," extending Friedmann's work.

Anyway, the biggest problem, which you do not address at all except a little piece in 2, is the need for a training and support infrastructure. Also see the incredible resources provided to the community by the Dallas Public Library's Urban Information Center and you can combine with this the idea of community-based land use planning assistance programs (the Orton Family Foundation software CommunityViz, work of the DOE unit in Denver as explained in this presentation, Planning Tools for the Next Century).

Before making recommendations about ANCs in DC, it would do you well to study other forms of neighborhood representation in other cities such as Los Angeles (elected, large neighborhood councils, in response to the San Fernando Valley succession movement), Seattle (corporatist in form), Minneapolis' Neighborhood Revitalization Program, and the Neighborhood Planning Units, in Atlanta. As well as the various controversies over Community Boards in NYC. You can also consider the neighborhood based community benefits districts in Baltimore (Charles Village, Midtown)--quite controversial in some quarters, and even special service funding districts, and other forms of focused and structured citizen involvement.

Many of these bodies have similar problems to DC's ANCs, for similar reasons, while some function quite well by comparison. A key difference, such as with the Minneapolis program, is the substantive focus on a training infrastructure and providing technical assistance. (Also, money, which organizations can use to work with local parks and schools to foment specific changes.)

You should also read the book by Jim Diers, although I think he made mistakes, as you can see from this blog entry: Thinking about constituency building at the start of a new administration and my opining about constituency building. Seattle has a "department of neighborhoods," that at least under the leadership of Diers was more than just doing programs to ensure the re-election of the mayor.


See, if I ever manage to get into a PhD program, my dissertation would be on rearticulating the planning profession around enabling civic engagement, because land use issues are those most likely to engage the average citizen in local civic affairs.

Another thing to think about is the _fact_, that with each iteration of engagement in planning exercises and processes, with rare exception (me being one of them), people don't "get better" and know more and achieve better results, with the greater experience and expertise that they develop through participation in multiple planning processes....

Anyway, 1 (Modify the structure of Single Member Districts) and 4 (Term Limits for ANC Commissioners) are good ideas. 3 (Reduce the number of ANCs or enlarge SMD sizes) is problematic.

You need to think about this as it relates to the spatial organization of neighborhoods. In less dense neighborhoods like Brookland, it would make for even bigger SMDs, and allow for a worsening of the kind of dictatorship that can happen. See, in Ward 5, they need more ANCs, covering smaller areas, because each is very large, and brings together people with vastly different interests that often can't be reconciled. Each of the ANCs covers a major distance, i.e., C covers from Ft. Totten to New York Avenue, for the most part west of the railroad. B from Fort Lincoln to Bloomingdale. A is the most geographically concentrated but still covers too large an area. And Brookland is split amongst each of the ANCs...

I also don't know if there needs to be incentives for serving, and some focus on funding but in a structured way (a la 6A) so that civil society at the grassroots can be better supported.

And speaking of support, in your point 2, which focuses on providing documents on the part of ANCs, you don't even mention the fact that city govt. makes no effort to provide ANCs with office space and other structured support. The neighborhood councils in Seattle are each assigned one permanent staff member. And they get the opportunity for grants for specific kinds of projects. (See the websites on the Seattle City Neighborhood Council and the "about" page from the Ballard District Council. And this press release from today, "City Council Receives Neighborhood District Council AuditReport calls for improvement.")

Of course, there are other thoughtful approaches to engaging citizenry, such as that espoused by the Asset-Based Community Development Institute generally, and this publication specifically, Leading by Stepping Back: A Guide for City Officials on Building Neighborhood Capacity, and by Wright and Fung (Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance and Empowered Participation: Reinventing Urban Democracy).

Talking a lot, but not really saying anything

(with apologies to the Talking Heads, remembering that I didn't go see them in a small student theater on campus, probably fewer than 400 people capacity, in maybe October 1978, because I thought writing a paper was more important...)

Today's Post has an op-ed by a former Post writer about the need to have dedicated funding sources for WMATA, that the lack of this has likely contributed to whatever the failures were that led to the terrible crash two days ago, a crash which killed 9 people and injured scores more, ironically in a place where a train crash about 100 years ago killed 38 people. See "A Metro Issue to Weigh: The Price of Parsimony."

Terra Cotta Station on an old USGS map, date unknown.

As important as dedicated funding is, see for example this report from the Brookings Institution, Washington's Metro: Deficits by Design, the issues go much deeper.

The primary reason that I have been writing a lot less (this blog has been known for prodigious posting and long entries) for the past few months (besides work responsibilities, house responsibilities, and a bit of a life outside land use and transportation and good government and civic engagement concerns, not to mention a laptop riven with viruses so I don't take it with me too often when I travel these days) is that I am "depressed" about the state of things in the city. I am astounded at the meagre level of discourse and thinking, the quality of our democracy, the striving for mediocrity, the failure to be able to think and execute with vision.

Having just been for a few days to Smith Island on the Chesapeake Bay, staying in a town, Tylerton, now with about 50 residents, and only reachable by boat, makes me think even more about how failure to make the right decisions can have terrible consequences--the pollution of the Chesapeake by man's transgressions has destroyed much of the oyster and crab population, and the land and marshes abutting the bay continues to erode.

And as an article in the Post said a couple weeks ago, "East Coast May Feel Rise in Sea Levels the Most," places like Dorchester County could be half under water in 20+ years (which makes me realize how these kinds of issues need to be incorporated better into the planning work I do--it's something I missed when working on a commercial district revitalization framework plan for Cambridge earlier this year).

Herons, geese and other birds, Chesapeake Bay, off Smith Island (this was in Virginia; the southern most part of the Island, and the Delmarva Peninsula, is Virginia territory). We reached this area by boat.

On the local WashDC_Metro e-list, someone wrote about how the WMATA Board needs to take responsibility, has responsibility for what happened, and that people should resign.

I do think that the board, consisting of political appointees from the various jurisdictions, must be more professionalized. It can't be a bunch of hacks making very short term decisions, with a severe political calculus. We may never know why, but people died, and I have to believe that at least in part, this was the consequence of management and leadership failures, both within the operational side of the transit system, as well as in the leadership and oversight of the system. (And yes, maybe we need railroad people, not bus people, to run the railroad system of the transit system.)

I think a lot about systems, processes, and structures (one of the most important books I ever read was the Social Psychology of Organizations, and for a brief time I did a bit of work with Ronald Lippitt, one of the founders of the field of organizational development, allegedly he coined the term). Basically, if you get the systems and processes right, you should generate the right outcomes. And, while I haven't read this book, Computer-Related Risks, I used to read the column by the author that appeared monthly back in the journal Communications of the Association of Computer Machinery.

Computer-Related Risks is much more than a collection of computer mishaps; it is a serious, technically oriented book written by one of the world's leading experts on computer risks. Computer-Related Risks summarizes many real events involving computer technologies and the people who depend on those technologies, with widely ranging caused and effects. It considers problems attributable to hardware, software, people, and natural causes. Examples include disasters (such as the Black Hawk helicopter and Iranian Airbus shootdowns, the Exxon Valdez, and various transportation accidents); malicious hacker attacks; outages of telephone systems ad computer networks; financial losses; and many other strange happenstances (squirrels downing power grids, and April Fool's Day pranks). Computer-Related Risks addresses problems involving reliability, safety, security, privacy, and human well-being. It includes analyses of why these cases happened and discussions of what might be done to avoid recurrences of similar events.

All the outcome failures I write about have to do with flawed systems. And our region is flawed.

Some time ago, I suggested that the WMATA board members be elected. In "Accountability Systems" from November 2007, I wrote:

In the Sunday Post, two letter writers, in "A Few Fare Questions For Metro," pose some questions. I don't agree that Congressional investigation is the answer. Tom Davis has hardly shown himself to be reasonably able on transit questions, even if he has put forth legislation to provide additional federal funding. But their point about accountability and connectedness is worth thinking about.

As long as the WMATA board is somewhat insulated from the citizenry, because board members are appointed by the jurisdictions, with Maryland's appointments made by the Governor, yet another level beyond the purview of MontCo and PG, especially because for the most part people appointed to these kinds of boards don't use transit (this isn't NYC), there will be a disconnect between transit users and the transit system.

Not only are the board members, maybe other than those from Arlington County, not likely to use transit in the DC region, they might not even be inclined to ride transit when they travel to other places, further limiting their understanding and awareness.

In the past I suggested that maybe the WMATA board should be elected. OTOH, locally elected representatives may not be connected to the funding streams from government, which would be a different and undesired disconnect as well.

Still, there may need to be some directly elected representation on the WMATA board, to increase connectedness to the citizenry, if not accountability. In other areas, transit taxes are voted on by the electorate (San Francisco Bay, etc.). Again, voting on issues like this would increase awareness and connectedness.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Someone else countered that because of the fact that WMATA is funded in part by annual contributions by the three jurisdictions, that the board needs to be tightly coupled with those jurisdictions, with the people making budget decisions. I see their point. Furthermore, it's not like we have great examples from elsewhere about a more open system for selecting WMATA board members.

But it's not working at least at some level, despite record ridership. And focusing on the need for dedicated funding is important, but not the only problem, and in fact, it is the result of a broader and deeper problem, in how the regional system was conceptualized and how it is managed and how it is led.

People work at the scene where two transit trains were involved in a crash in Washington June 22, 2009. Two Washington, D.C., subway trains collided during the Monday afternoon rush hour, killing four people and injuring 70 in a mass of tangled metal. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas (UNITED STATES TRANSPORT SOCIETY)

Decisions and failure to lead, have consequences.