City and national politics, the rise in disorder and the Republican/Democratic narrative | Elections in Seattle and New York City

Last year I wrote about how the "defund the police" trope could be damaging to the Democratic Party's election prospects, in the same way that Nixon trumped Humphrey in 1968 ("Is it too late to change the messaging on "Defund the Police"? How about "Reconstruct Policing"?" -- although now I call for broadening the definition and delivery of "public safety" see "The opportunity to rearticulate public safety delivery keeps being presented").

People gathered along the area known as Methadone Mile in Boston.  Photo: Erin Clark.    From "How should Boston fix the ‘Mass. and Cass’ area?," Boston Globe.

And it's fair to say that while Trump was not successful in fully painting the Democrats as the party of disorder, there's no question that Democrat losses in the House and the failure to take the Senate were in part because of suburban voters being fed up with Trump, but not in all cases, Republicans ("How ‘Defund the Police’ Roiled Competitive Races in New York" and "Has New York Hit a Progressive Plateau? The Mayor’s Race Is a Key Test," New York Times, "Is defunding the police 'Obamacare 2.0'? Democrats face challenge with voters heading into 2022," USA Today).

Photo: Mark Piscotty, Getty Images.

The cities where we are seeing steps backward especially are Portland ("Portland leaders condemn ongoing violence by ‘anarchists’," AP), New York, San Francisco ("The 'little things' are turning San Francisco bad in a big way," The Hill, "How California Homelessness Became a Crisis," NPR), and Seattle ("Why does prosperous King County have a homelessness crisis?," McKinsey), 

Another place we are seeing that play out is in local elections this year in Seattle and New York City.  NYC's primary is today, but with ranked choice voting and many candidates it's hard to say who will win.  Seattle's primary is not until the first week of August.

In both elections, the rise in violent crime, especially murder (not unique to those cities, see "Murders Are Rising the Most in a Few Isolated Precincts of Major Cities," Wall Street Journal), and disorder associated with a significant rise in homelessness and people living on the streets is making it much harder for "progressive candidates" like Dianne Morales, who is especially hardcore compared to Maya Wiley, in New York and in Seattle ("Why 2021 might be the year of backlash in Seattle city elections," Crosscut).

And Republicans are working very hard to make rising crime the main argument against Democrats in the midterm elections next year ("Rising violent crime poses new challenge for White House," The Hill, "Biden launches an effort to head off violent crime — and political peril for his party," Washington Post).

In NYC, Eric Adams, Brooklyn Borough President and a former police officer, seems to be the leader, in part because of his police background, although it's possible as secondary votes are redistributed through the RCV process, he might not win.

Of course, Fox and similar media like the New York Post ("NYC progressives are going to lose the Dem primary to soaring crime") see this as all about crime and disorder. 

OTOH, they might be right, and what happens in these elections, and maybe the Boston mayoral race, where crime and disorder don't seem to be prime issues ("Boston's Historic Race For Mayor Matters To The Entire Region. Why Aren't More People Paying Attention?," WBUR/NPR), will give some clues to how the Democrats will have to position in the 2022 House and Senate elections.

======

Cities and disorder.  Granted, dealing with crime and homelessness is complicated.  But I vividly remember what DC was like in the late 1980s and throughout much of the 1990s and what it cost me personally and I would never want to return to those times.  

I have no problem with addressing crime, funding homeless services, and at the same time, broadening our definition of what public safety should be, how to fund it, and how to deliver it, while reversing the adoption by police departments of warrior policing, overpolicing and the crminalization of poverty and other social problems, which is thoroughly discussed in End of Policing.

While I agree with arguments about overpolicing and mass incarceration, at the same time, violent crime shouldn't be ignored, nor should disorder of various types including camping out in public spaces.

Seattle's CHOP/CHAZ certainly proved that expecting people to just all get along, not commit crimes, and self organize for security is "unrealistic" ("They envisioned a world without police. Inside Seattle's CHOP zone, protesters struggled to make it real," CNN, "What Really Happened in CHOP?," Seattle Met Magazine, "SEATTLE’S CHOP WENT OUT WITH BOTH A BANG AND A WHIMPER," The Intercept).

Somehow we need to strike a balance, but a kind of nullification of the recognition that disorder is not positive for cities, along the lines of Moynihan's "Defining Deviancy Down" is a move backward to urban decline, along the lines of what Fred Siegel wrote about in The Future Once Happened Here.  

People seem to have forgotten that it was significant improvements in public safety--for example DC's number of murders went from  482 in 1991 to 88 in 2012, but have since risen, to 198 last year--that helped to spur in-migration back into the cities, for example DC has added more than 100,000 new residents in the past 10 years. 

Siegel is considered conservative, but his book is very important.

In 2009, there was a column featuring an interview with Siegel in the Arizona Republic, called "3 Ways Cities Go Bad," and number one is disorder.  From the article:

Siegel believes there are three fundamental ways in which big cities go bad. The first is to lose control of order and civility in their public space - the streets, sidewalks and parks. This was an essential part of New York's deterioration and subsequent crime epidemic and the primary element of its recovery.

I told Siegel of a long walk my wife and I had taken from our hotel to Central Park and through Central Park to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, returning partially after nightfall. We felt not a moment of unease, were never panhandled and saw only three vagrants along the way. Siegel said such an excursion would have been unthinkable 15 years ago.

Even more remarkably, Siegel thinks this part of New York's recovery will endure. Previously, politicians dodged responsibility by saying that there was nothing that could practically be done to control the small acts of disorder and incivility - such as aggressive panhandling, public urination and a large presence of vagrants - that lead to a loss of control over public space and larger disorder that involves more serious crime.

This has been proved wrong and, according to Siegel, New Yorkers will not accept slippage among the politicians on this front.

In the book, he discusses "dependent individualism" and the "riot ideology."  The former I term "I can do whatever I want and you have to pay for it" and the latter as "if you don't give us x and y, we'll riot." 

The other two elements of failure according to Siegel are dominance of local politics by municipal unions and a decline in the private sector as a fundamental element of the local economy.  He calls this  the "entitlement economy," where opportunity is derived from politics and political decisions.

Is it too late to change the messaging on "Defund the Police"? How about "Reconstruct Policing"?

Since last week's blog entry, "Fire," the concept of "defunding the police" has gained traction.

Los Angeles Mayor Gil Garcetti announced that the city will put $250 million into new social programs and initiatives, paying for it in part by reducing the police department budget ("Growing the LAPD was gospel at City Hall. George Floyd changed that," Los Angeles Times).

Yesterday, the Minneapolis City Council voted to "Defund the Police" ("‘Defund the police’ gains traction as cities seek to respond to demands for a major law enforcement shift," Washington Post).

"Defund the Police" was added to the Black Lives Matter mural painted on 16th Street between K and H Streets, leading to Lafayette Square and the White House. It removed the three stars from the DC flag in the original "Black Live Matters" mural, so that it now reads: Black Lives Matter = Defund The Police. Twitter Photo: @dougmillsnyt.

The concept isn't about letting anarchy reign over the streets, but about reshaping and reorganizing "police response" by redirecting responses to many needs away from armed police officers.

-- "When Protesters Cry Defund the Police, What Does It Mean?," Associated Press
-- "Defund the Police? Here's what that really means," Washington Post
-- "The answer to police violence is not 'reform'. It's defunding. Here's why" Guardian

It is also a response to how being African-American has been criminalized and policing has become a form of racialized social control ("How racist policing took over American cities, explained by a historian," Vox) and militarized.

Protesters march Saturday, June 6, 2020, in New York. Demonstrations continue across the United States in protest of racism and police brutality, sparked by the May 25 death of George Floyd in police custody in Minneapolis. (Ragan Clark/Associated Press)


But the messaging is terrible.

How about "Reconstruct Policing"?

All I can think of is the 1968 Election when Republicans, Richard Nixon, made "Law and Order" the main campaign flank in the face of a summer of unrest and demonstrations, which peaked at the Democratic Convention in Chicago.

These were the so called "Days of Rage," where Mayor Daley unleashed the police on demonstrators--great for television news photographers, not so great for political messaging for the Democrats ("The 'law and order’ campaign that won Richard Nixon the White House 50 years ago," Washington Post).

Even though today is different--maybe not a lot--from 1968.

Researchers are finding a greater recognition on the part of whites that African-Americans suffer disproportionately from policing ("More Americans troubled by police actions in George Floyd killing than violence at protests: poll," The Hill) and more widespread protest against the George Floyd killing ("The Floyd protests are the broadest in U.S. history — and are spreading to white, small-town America," Washington Post).

Still, "Defund the Police" will provide a lot of opportunity for Republican attack ads.  Not just along the lines of what Richard Nixon's campaign did (see below).  But George H.W. Bush and Willie Horton ("How Bush’s 1988 Campaign Ushered in a New Era of Racial Politics," New York Times), etc.

Just because DC City Council is in session and Congress isn't, doesn't mean they make better decisions

The Post has an article today with the trope that DC City Council can "get things done" even if Congress can't.  See "DC Council meets during shutdown, delays first attorney general election to 2018."  From the article:

The mere fact that the council was at work Tuesday stood out in a city where hundreds of thousands of federal workers and contractors made only brief appearances at their offices to turn in BlackBerrys and close up shop until Congress can reach a spending agreement.

The council openly delighted in the contrast, voting unanimously to support an emergency bill calling for the mayor to keep the city open for the duration of the federal shutdown. The measure was largely symbolic but put the council squarely behind Mayor Vincent C. Gray (D), who last week defied Congress and past precedent by declaring the District’s entire 30,000-member workforce as essential personnel.

But the Council voted to postpone the first election of an Attorney General by four years, which is counter to the sentiment of the people who voted to make this position popularly elected.  They had three years to deal with the repercussions of the 2012 decision by the voters, and they punted.

And they also voted to keep the primary election in April, making it much harder for incumbents to be challenged, instead of holding the election as late as early August, which would extend the electioneering season by 14 weeks.

So they deserve zero plaudits.  They voted, but they didn't act in ways that support "democracy" and "the will of the people."

They are protecting their privileges as much as the Tea Party associated Republican Congressman are protecting their interests, by shutting down the Federal Government.

Potentially positive unintended consequence of Congress taking control of the Union Square section of the National Mall

Delegate Norton's office calls our attention to this press release:

Norton Applauds Passage of Union Square Filming Amendment, Reiterates Call for Expanded Filming of Capitol

Washington, DC—Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) said she was pleased with passage today by the House Appropriations Committee of an amendment to the fiscal year 2013 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill ratifying the Capitol Police Board’s decision to continue to allow commercial filming and photography in Union Square (the area just below the west side of the Capitol), after it was transferred last year from the National Park Service (NPS) to the Architect of the Capitol (AOC). After the transfer, Norton met separately with all the federal stakeholders to ensure that the NPS policy would be maintained after the transfer.

However, the Congresswoman said she would continue to seek an expansion of the areas where commercial filming and photography of the Capitol are permitted. In a letter last week, Norton urged the Committee on House Administration and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration to hold a hearing to explore the possibility of expanding the permissible areas around the Capitol for commercial filming and photography. “I am gratified that the Appropriations Committee has given the Capitol Police Chief the express authority to allow commercial filming and photography in Union Square,” Norton said. “With this precedent, we have an even stronger case for allowing commercial filming and photography beyond Union Square. An expansion would benefit both D.C. and the nation. More films--and the large crews and tax dollars they bring--would be made in D.C., and films and photographs of the Capitol help illustrate our democratic system to the rest of the world.”

Norton said the transfer of jurisdiction from NPS occurred abruptly in the fiscal year 2012 omnibus spending bill without hearings. She believes that a hearing would show that there are advantages to an expansion at a time when the economy is struggling, and that there are no security risks. Particularly considering that filming requires the permission of the Capitol Police, Norton said, the transfer is an opportunity to explore commercial filming and photography of the Capitol for the first time in decades.

In the last sentence of the release, Delegate Norton made the point that the transfer, and the continuation of access to this area for filming and demonstrations--something that was a concern to various quarters (see "Control of the Mall’s Union Square changes hands" from the Post ) may provide an opportunity to expand the concept of film access more broadly to other areas of the Capitol Complex.

While Congress generally has not been interested in putting monies toward National Mall improvements because they don't care about Washington except as a place to excoriate, over a long term perspective, this could change.  This was discussed in a great Associated Press takeout, "Neglected National Mall Languishes," from a couple years ago.

At the same time, having this section of the National Mall under the control of Congress gives Congress more reason to deal with National Mall issues on a regular basis.

This is a long term goal that Delegate Norton and her staff will have to try to stay on top of, but clearly, they already are.

Why DC gets dissed by the federal government a lot: Union Station edition

A sign (top) portrays a ghoulish depiction of US President Barack Obama and reads 'The Doctor Will See You Now', during a march and demonstration held by thousands to protest health care reform proposed by the US President in Washington DC, USA, 12 September 2009. Organized by a conservative group called the Tea Party Patriots, the demonstration began at Freedom Plaza and ended at the US Capitol Hill. Photo: European Press Agency/MICHAEL REYNOLDS

The City Paper Housing Complex blog has a story, "Union Station Can’t Get It Together," about Union Station not receiving any US DOT monies for the improvement of the transit infrastructure there.

A couple years ago, the Associated Press did a great story about the National Mall in Washington, DC, "Neglected National Mall Languishes," about why Congress is not very interested in appropriating money for its improvement--because they would rather provide money for projects in their own districts. From the article:

An Associated Press analysis of congressional spending since 2005 found the mall has been at a disadvantage in competing for extra funds doled out by lawmakers, compared with sites that are represented by powerful members of Congress. The mall is in Washington, D.C., which has no vote in the House or Senate.

Last year, when dozens of ducks and ducklings died of avian botulism because the water in a mall pool near the Capitol was so fetid, and as urgent repairs were needed to stop the Jefferson Memorial’s sea wall from sinking into the mud, the Senate killed a $3.5 million earmark for the mall.

Instead, funding went to projects back home. All told, Congress sent home more than $181 million in earmarks through the park service budget last year — an election year — according to data compiled by the group Taxpayers for Common Sense and analyzed by the AP.

Given that the Obama Administration got whupped in the 2010 midterm elections, it doesn't make sense for the Administration to rub salt in the eyes of the anti-Washington folk and not earn any votes for the 2012 election in the process.

Appropriations are more likely to go where they can have electoral impact. DC doesn't have have voting representatives in the House and Senate, and even if we did, we'd still vote for the Democratic Party whether or not Union Station gets special federal appropriations this year...

-- Also see "Running Against Washington" from a 1976 issue of Time Magazine and this blog entry from 2006, "Running against Washington means you're predisposed not to help it."

It's not that Union Station "can't get it together," but instead, "Union Station can't catch a break."

Probably the DC Government Inspector General position should be popularly elected as well

In the most recent election, there was a ballot referendum calling for making the DC Attorney General position popularly elected. I supported this referendum, although I had suggested having the position come up for election in the so called "off cycle" when the ballot doesn't have the Mayor on the ballot, and that's not how the referendum was worded.

The referendum passed, and therefore effective with the 2014 election, the Attorney General will be popularly elected.

(FWIW, I believe that the Attorney General of the United States should also be popularly elected. One wrinkle in DC is that the federal government still controls the prosecution of adult crimes, so that here, the DC Attorney General focuses on a variety of public protection issues, and the prosecution of juvenile crime. Delegate Norton is advocating that the federal government yield to DC the authority to prosecute adult crimes. However, I feel that can come as a hopefully successful track record is developed for the locally elected AG.)

Given the problems of independence that an Inspector General seems to have in DC (see "DC inspector general plays lap dog to corrupt pols") from the Examiner) with regard to local government, maybe this position should be popularly elected as well.

From the article:

The IG's ineffectiveness here begs a more serious question: Even if Willoughby had been able to investigate the Sulaimon Brown case, would anything have happened? The answer, from many law enforcement officials, past and present, is in doubt.

"If you want to bury something," one former District legal official told me, "send it over there. Willoughby is not a prosecutorial type, not an investigator. When he gets in a political thicket, he's not willing to stick his neck out."

Primary election special: Why I absolutely hate politics but am likely to vote for Fenty

Today's Post has op eds from Mayor Fenty ("A strong foundation") and Council Chairman Vince Gray ("Working as 'one city'") about why you should vote for them respectively in the primary election.

1. I'm not really going to vote for Fenty as much as I will be voting against the various groups that have come to form the coalition that supports Vince Gray--despite the fact that I respect Vince Gray for his intellect and commitment. Despite Gray's bonafides, there is plenty of animus in his campaign, not directed so much at Fenty (even though that's how it is focused) as much as it is about change and the future in general, and how the city responds to the opportunities present today, in the 21st century, changes that mean new residents, new investment, new ways of doing things, and so on, which also means changes in the economic and political and social arrangements that rule the city and how people interact.

I think a lot of Gray's supporters are anti-white, people who don't understand that the real issue isn't skin color but about capital and differences in opinion about how to build an inclusive future, and that by being anti-white racists, they completely miss what is really important. As I always say, when it comes down to color, the only color that matters in the end is the green of money.

Personally, I catch a lot of s*** from these various groups because of my positions and what I write in local listservs and other venues, so I just can't vote for Gray, I can't. Many of his supporters are just as bad as, even if they are more refined, the carpet baggers like Ronald Moten, Sinclair Skinner, and Omar Karim that feed off the Fenty Administration and misdirected contracts. I suppose that eventually that these Fenty supporters would come around and call me a racist too, we just don't move in the same circles, but at least they haven't yet.

2. Why I don't want to vote for Fenty comes down to a couple things. (a.) he doesn't think that old people such as myself--I am 50 years old--have much to offer. And frankly, I didn't start developing what we might call wisdom on how to better deal with people and build consensus as well as patience until I was 46-48 years of age--at an age basically 9 years older than Fenty is today.

(b.) the schools reform effort is utterly and completely f***** -- remember that "flawed" is the other F word, and despite the national attention and fawning over Michelle Rhee, the effort will fail, because it is focused on miraculous "great" and "young" teachers and not n building robust performance and operational systems, structures, and processes that transcend the "heroic" individuals that Rhee seems to think somehow make organizational--not individual--change happen.

3. And these couple paragraphs in today's op-ed piece by Mayor Fenty communicate why I hate politicians so often BECAUSE VIRTUALLY ALL OF THESE PROJECTS WERE INITIATED BY THE WILLIAMS ADMINISTRATION, AND PUT IN THE PIPELINE, BUT BECAUSE PROJECTS TAKE YEARS TO COME TO FRUITION, THEY CAME ON LINE DURING THE FENTY ADMINISTRATION.

From the Fenty op-ed:

Our streets are safer. Under the leadership of Police Chief Cathy Lanier, crime is down across the board. The homicide rate is the lowest it has been since 1966, and we're on track to bring it down even further this year.

Despite the worst economy since the Great Depression, we've created thousands of jobs, financed more than 11,000 units of affordable housing and delivered more than a dozen new parks and recreation centers in neighborhoods that had not seen real investment in decades. We brought grocery stores, restaurants and retail east of the Anacostia River and to Georgia Avenue. The Target-anchored DC USA is the capstone to more than a $1 billion in new investment in Columbia Heights.

4. Even so, I guess because people who drove this city in to the ground, people like Marion Barry, support Vince Gray, I guess that means I can't in good conscience vote for Gray It's too chilling and scary. The company that people keep says a lot about them.

I wouldn't call this an endorsement, just a description of the way that I am torn up inside about the upcoming election, in what I believe about the future of Washington, DC--its potential vs. its reality.

Vote and die

Remember all those "vote or die" campaigns targeting young voters, say from the mid-1990s through 2004 or 2008.

What happens when you vote and things still really suck?

What are you supposed to do when your choices are so rank, that you don't even want to go to the polls and cast a ballot to begin with?

This comes to mind after going around the city this past weekend (without my camera) and seeing campaign signs for Vincent Orange as DC Council Chair. Today's Post has a story about the campaign, "Vincent Orange will challenge Kwame Brown in race for D.C. Council chairmanship," and the very traditional terrible hacks (John Ray, H.R. Crawford, Kevin Chavous) who are supporting him. Ugh. Really bad. I can't think of many worse people in the city than John Ray (e.g., of the Florida Market City Council master development rights "land grab") or H.R. Crawford (real estate shenanigans) or Kevin Chavous and his charter schoolitis.

I wonder of course, if Kwame Brown is any better. I had the misfortune of attending his very first campaign event in something like 2003 or 2004 and so I've always had a hard time... I like his father, Marshall, but Marshall was one of Marion Barry's chief field directors, and that makes it even harder for me.

In the Mayoral election, we have choices between Mayor Fenty, who believes he knows everything, and isn't driven by vision, and Vince Gray. Gray is smart, but he, like all of the other candidates thus far, is for the most part one of the interchangeable cogs in the Growth Machine.

Abstract from "City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place" by Harvey Molotch:

A city and, more generally, any locality, is conceived as the areal expression of the interests of some land-based elite. Such an elite is seen to profit through the increasing intensification of the land use of the area in which its members hold a common interest. An elite competes with other land-based elites in an effort to have growth-inducing resources invested within its own area as opposed to that of another. Governmental authority, at the local and nonlocal levels, is utilized to assist in achieving this growth at the expense of competing localities. Conditions of community life are largely a consequence of the social, economic, and political forces embodied in this growth machine.

This is why I usually find it funny when people think that somehow their candidate is different. For the most part, all candidates support the consensus agenda of "growth."

Yes, it does make a difference between who gets elected, sometimes. I'd rather have a Martin O'Malley over a Robert Ehrlich. O'Malley supports transit and other ground-up economic development efforts (such as commercial district revitalization, heritage based tourism initiatives, etc.); Ehrlich does not.

But the choices the electorate faces in DC look increasingly bad, and except for the fact that you have other hacks running for the at-large City Council position (Clark Ray--his campaign plank is that Mayor Fenty needs more support on Council; Kelvin Robinson--he was chief of staff for awhile for Mayor Williams), targeting Phil Mendelson, who does in fact challenge the Growth Machine from time and time, and therefore has earned my support, I am looking at the upcoming primary election as a very distasteful experience where I don't want to go to the polls and vote at all.

Why is it that our choices are so bad to begin with?

Also see this blog entry from 2005, "Tom Sherwood, Duncan Spencer, Anwar Amal, and thinking about what I call the 'Uncivil War'"and this one from 2008, "Being "right" vs. being strategic politically."

First order change vs. second order change and DC politics

I am rueful over the current state of electoral politics in DC. While I argue all the time that it can make a big difference on who gets elected, depending on the level of the office--particularly President of the United States of America and Governor of the various states--at the municipal level in a place with oligopolistic politics, the reality is that who is the Mayor doesn't make all that much difference when it comes down to it, unless a person is really, truly transformational, or really really really really really really bad, e.g., Ray Nagin in New Orleans, Marion Barry for most of his terms as Mayor of DC, etc. It is no coincidence that DC's economic resurgence beginning around 2000 happened after Marion Barry was no longer Mayor.

That's the case in DC right now with the various people jockeying for power, especially for Mayor ("Gray's entry into D.C. mayor's race comes with two caveats" from the Post) but also for City Council Chair now that the current chair, Vince Gray, has opted to run for Mayor.

With one or two exceptions, the candidates or the names touted as possible candidates, are different shades of the same growth machine.

I find it sad and funny that the "Anybody but Fenty" crowd thinks that they won't eventually be disappointed by whomever becomes Mayor, because the tune the elected official dances to is not the tune that the people think they are hearing.

To review (extract from an old blog entry):

I am a fervent proponent of the Growth Machine thesis, first laid out by sociologist Harvey Molotch, in the seminal article, City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place. From the abstract:

A city and, more generally, any locality, is conceived as the areal expression of the interests of some land-based elite. Such an elite is seen to profit through the increasing intensification of the land use of the area in which its members hold a common interest. An elite competes with other land-based elites in an effort to have growth-inducing resources invested within its own area as opposed to that of another. Governmental authority, at the local and nonlocal levels, is utilized to assist in achieving this growth at the expense of competing localities. Conditions of community life are largely a consequence of the social, economic, and political forces embodied in this growth machine.

Political scientist Clarence Stone is the "dean" of the school of the competing thesis, that of the "urban regime." I don't think these theories are competing so much as different sides of the same coin. "Growth Machine" theory explains the motivation of "the land-based elite," and "urban regime" theory explains in detail how the land-based elite operates and functions. ("Growth Machine" proponents are sociologists, while "Urban Regime" proponents are political scientists.)

Professor Stone was kind enough to send me his paper, "Now What? The continuing evolution of Urban Regime analysis," from 2005. He writes:

An urban regime can be preliminarily defined as the informal arrangements through which a locality is governed (Stone 1989). Because governance is about sustained efforts, it is important to think in agenda terms rather than about stand-alone issues. By agenda I mean the set of challenges which policy makers accord priority. A concern with agendas takes us away from focusing on short-term controversies and instead directs attention to continuing efforts and the level of weight they carry in the political life of a community. Rather than treating issues as if they are disconnected, a governance perspective calls for considering how any given issue fits into a flow of decisions and actions. This approach enlarges the scope of what is being analyzed, looking at the forest not a particular tree here or there. (emphasis added, in this paragraph and below)

In discussing Atlanta, Stone writes: "Land use, transportation, and housing formed an interrelated agenda that the city's major economic interests were keen to advance;" and

By looking closely at the policy role of business leaders and how their position in the civic structure of a community enabled that role, he identified connections between Atlanta's governing coalition and the resources it brought to bear, and on to the scheme of cooperation that made this informal system work. In his own way, Hunter had identified the key elements in an urban regime – governing coalition, agenda, resources, and mode of cooperation. These elements could be brought into the next debate about analyzing local politics, a debate about structural determinism.
---------
I came across this book, Change: Principles of Problem Formation and Problem Formation in the late 1970s or early 1980s. The major point is that "change" may not be substantive, which can also be the difference between "reform" and "transformation." The book distinguishes between first order change (moving things around) and substantive, second order change (transformation).

At the local level, often, "change we can believe in" isn't transformation, it's substituting a new cog for an old one, or replacing a burned out 75 watt bulb with another incandescent bulb, but even if you "change" to a CFL light bulb, not much has really changed.

Or in the terms of the Urban Regime thesis, while the individuals change, the governing coalition, agenda, available resources, and mode of cooperation remain the same. And the agenda? Well, that's the Growth Machine thesis in a nutshell: intensification of land use-real estate development.

Transportation demand management planning for real vs. for show

Action Committee for Transit, the optimal mobility advocates in Montgomery County, have put out a press release, Nov 30, Press Release on Bethesda $89 Million Garage Boondoggle , about Montgomery County's plans to build a massive parking structure deep underground in Bethesda.

From the release:

Under current plans, the county will spend $89 million to dig seven stories into the earth beneath a planned mixed-use development across the street from Barnes & Noble in Bethesda. The 1100-car public garage, buried under two floors of private parking for the new development, will cost some $80,000 per parking space. Because it will be so deep, the cost is more than double what is usual for underground parking. ...

To come up with the size of the garage, the Parking Division assumed that 74% of Bethesda employees drive to work and need to park. Currently, this number is less than 70%; under the county Master Plan it is scheduled to decline to less than 63%. And the planned Purple Line station just a few hundred feet from the garage site will reduce demand for parking even more.

Yet many of these expensive new parking spaces will almost surely sit unused -- like the empty lower level of the new public parking garage in Columbia Heights. Although the county Parking Division contended, when it won approval for the project, that the surrounding area was hundreds of spaces short of daytime parking even before the new stores on Bethesda Lane opened last year, the Parking Division's own aerial photo taken late last year (like recent photos of the area on Google Earth) shows an empty top floor in the public garage across the street.

Aerial photo of Downtown Bethesda.

The high cost of the garage means that even in the improbable event that the garage fills up, parking fees will not cover the cost of construction and the garage will need subsidies. At 80 cents per hour, the average cost of public parking in Bethesda today, and 80% occupancy between 10 am and 10 pm weekdays, the annual revenue from each parking space would be $1600. That is not enough even to cover the interest on the construction bonds.

What this shows is that just because a municipality might have a transportation demand management program in place, as Montgomery County does have for Bethesda, it doesn't mean that the agencies and officials tasked with transportation planning and/or transportation operations are committed to optimal mobility, and shifting trips away from the automobile.

As much as I hate to say it, I understand how and why Montgomery County Department of Transportation officials are car-focused because the reality is that the county is spread out and most households have cars and rely upon the automobile.

On the other hand, we get tricked into thinking that Montgomery County is progressive on transportation issues (and sprawl) because of the 12 red line subway stations in the county (plus Takoma station, in DC, is on the border), the existence of four transportation management districts, the Agricultural Reserve which keeps 150 square miles of the county free of sprawl (which instead is displaced to Frederick County...), and the county's creation of the RideOn bus system to complement and support people getting to the subway system (since the original creation of the RideOn system, the bus route structure has been expanded to provide supplemental bus service that isn't strictly focused on the subway system, although parts of the county without subway service don't have bus service).

Arlington County and the City of Tempe in Arizona have Transportation Commissions which address transportation issues in the same kind of detail that planning boards and planning commissions address land use issues. (Note that they need better websites.)

Technically, this is supposed to come together through a comprehensive land use plan or a county master land use plan. But if you have very independent Departments of Public Works/Transportation, the system usually ends up being discoordinated.

My preferred course of action is that planning commissions deal with all planning within a jurisdiction, i.e., transportation, schools, health and wellness, emergency service, parks, libraries, etc., not just land use.

And in DC, this is the flip side of my joke that DC doesn't have an office of planning, it has an office of land use, because even though the office of planning works with other agencies, most of the other agencies plan independently of the office of planning. (The way most jurisdictions bring this under control is by having a master capital improvements plan and budget, run by the planning office. DC doesn't do this.)

I don't know yet how to bring a renegade automobile-centric Department of Public Works under "control" and focused instead on optimal mobility.

I do think that baring having robust planning commissions with some oversight over the DPW, a transportation commission is a necessary step forward for counties and municipalities working to move optimal mobility to the forefront of the transportation planning agenda.

In Arlington County, the transportation function works just fine and progressively under a public works agency (there it is called "Environmental Protection" and maybe that's why they can function together, because there is a shared understanding of what the environment and environmental protection means).

Many center cities are splitting off the transportation function from the Department of Public Works, and there is an association of these transportation agencies called NACTO, the National Association of City Transportation Officials.

But Montgomery County demonstrates that just because you split off a transportation department from public works, it doesn't automatically mean that you have a progressive transportation department.

I hope that in Montgomery County and in other jurisdictions in Maryland that a more progressive local transportation policy becomes a key issue in the 2010 election cycle, pushed forward by local residents, civic organizations, environmental groups, and other activists, just as how Action Committee for Transit was so successful in making the Purple Line light rail system an issue in the 2006 election for positions on the Montgomery County Council and the County Executive.

Hans Riemer wasn't successful in his candidacy, but he was one of many candidates who committed to support the Purple Line, and he made transportation and the Purple Line a central part of his 2006 candidacy (the agenda and the literature) for a seat on the Montgomery County Council.

Even though certain candidates in Montgomery County ended up making themselves seem better on transportation issues than it turns out in actuality compared to how they are deciding as elected officials, the fact of the matter is that in 2005 the Purple Line was declared dead by the Washington Post and most people in the know, and now today, we know that the Purple Line is going to happen (well, pending federal funding) within the next few years, to the point where some residents along the line are now starting to advocate for the inclusion of a stop to serve their neighborhood(s), see "Residents lobby for Purple Line station" from the Gazette.

Surveying political candidates on their transportation behaviors

According to "Transit riders movement" in the Boston Globe, a coalition of groups asked candidates for Boston City Council a number of pointed questions on mobility, and created a website with the results for each office.

BOSTON CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATES TRANSPORTATION SURVEY

1. What is the most unsafe aspect of the current transportation system in your district/in the city, and what do you propose be done to improve the situation?

2. We know that lack of physical activity leads to overweight, which leads to rising health care costs. How would you make it easier for people to incorporate physical activity into their everyday activities by making it significantly easier for Boston residents to move around their communities by foot or by bicycle? What would you do to encourage the Safe Routes To School program or other ways to increase the number of children who walk or bike to school? What would you do to make it safer for seniors to walk or bike on our sidewalks and across our streets?

3. What would you do to help get increased public transportation services in your district/city? In particular, how would you help bring rapid transit to the large sections of Roxbury and Dorchester that currently lack it?

4. How would you apply "complete streets" design concepts, already being discussed by city agencies, that meet the needs of all travel modes including bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and automobiles, to all city streets, rather than just to those being repaired? How would you prioritize which streets are to be dealt with first?

5. Street space is the largest physical asset owned by the city. Devoting almost all of it to car traffic has a major impact on neighborhood quality of life. On what streets would you propose that pedestrian and cyclist use be prioritized, for example through the creation of temporary "cyclovias" that only allow non-motorized travel, or more permanent "shared spaces" and "bike boulevards" that allow cars but at reduced speeds?

6. Currently, it is technically illegal to ride a bike in city parks; and many neighborhood parks are underutilized. What would you do to increase access to parks by foot or bike or public transportation, and to facilitate cycling in the parks?

7. Better parking management is even more of a need in many commercial centers than more parking spaces. Reduced parking requirements (in zoning ordinances), Parking Benefit Districts, and other market based policies that price city-owned curb parking to reflect market rates are methods that can help to alleviate parking congestion and shortages. How would you better manage commercial parking areas in your district/in the city?

8. How would you leverage opportunities for Federal stimulus funding to create a more "active transportation" infrastructure in our city? What federal programs do you consider most able to be used for this purpose?

9. Many bicyclists feel under assault on Boston roads and many drivers view bicyclist as serious nuisances. How would you address the attitudes of drivers and bicyclists to promote a more civil atmosphere of road sharing and cooperation on city streets? How would you incorporate driver and bicycle training programs into the educational system of your district/city?

10. How do you personally get around the city? Please give percentages for walking, bicycling, public transportation, and automobile.

Elections

Just as when Bob Ehrlich, the Republican candidate, won the Governorship in Maryland in 2002 because he faced a weak Democratic candidate, I think the only thing that election results in Virginia ("GOP and McDonnell soar in Virginia" -- Post) and New Jersey ("Christie bests Corzine in election for N.J. governor" -- Post) from last night prove is that if you have weak candidates, it's a lot more likely you will lose. (See "Contests serve as warning to Democrats" from the Post.)

Because generally Democratic candidates favor transit and more rounded mobility programs (support of walking and biking, smart growth, etc.) this can be a problem. It certainly was in Maryland from 2003 to 2006.

That being said, Democrats are hardly perfect. But it is truly the case that it matters who wins elections.

The amendment to the Cincinnati charter that would have required a citizen vote on whether or not to build streetcars was defeated ("Voters reject city rail amendment" -- Cincinnati Enquirer), while citizens seem to have voted down a new land development in Davis, California ("Davis development defeated by 3-to-1 margin" -- Sacramento Bee).

And the Center for Transportation Excellence monitors elections on transportation-related issues around the country.

-- 2009 Election Monitoring & Results

MIT student/Cambridge homeowner runs for City Council on a quality of life ticket

Although interestingly, while promoting a wide variety of good ideas (inclusion of Cambridge in Boston's upcoming bicycle sharing program, expanding transit information, etc.) he does call for more parking, even as he favors speed and red light camera ticketing programs, as a speeding driver running a red light hit and killed a neighbor's child.

See his website: Leland Cheung for City Council and this article from the MIT Tech student newspaper, "MIT Graduate Student Runs for City Council, Hopes to Represent Students."

(reprinted due to some weird problem with the links)

Let's go to the Mall...

After festivals and celebrations in early July, the National Mall is worn from wear, as seen from the top of the Washington Monument facing the Capitol in Washington, on Tuesday, July 14, 2009. Crumbling sidewalks near the Jefferson Memorial are sinking into the Tidal Basin. Reflecting pools are filled with green, smelly water. And millions of visitors have trampled the soil into virtual concrete where grass can't grow. The National Mall is in danger of becoming a national disgrace.(AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

The City Desk blog/Loose Lips at the City Paper calls our attention to an AP story on the state of the National Mall, "Neglected National Mall languishes." From the article:

An Associated Press analysis of congressional spending since 2005 found the mall has been at a disadvantage in competing for extra funds doled out by lawmakers, compared with sites that are represented by powerful members of Congress. The mall is in Washington, D.C., which has no vote in the House or Senate.

Last year, when dozens of ducks and ducklings died of avian botulism because the water in a mall pool near the Capitol was so fetid, and as urgent repairs were needed to stop the Jefferson Memorial's sea wall from sinking into the mud, the Senate killed a $3.5 million earmark for the mall.

Instead, funding went to projects back home. All told, Congress sent home more than $181 million in earmarks through the park service budget last year — an election year — according to data compiled by the group Taxpayers for Common Sense and analyzed by the AP. Nearly half that money was driven by lawmakers who were on the House and Senate appropriations committees.. ...

Government watchdogs say earmarks corrupt the budget process. "We're making spending decisions on the basis of political muscle, rather than project merit," said Stephen Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. "Because the mall is owned by nobody, even though it is this gem for many Americans, it gets short shrift," he said.

The mall didn't just lose out on earmarks. In January, Congress deleted $200 million in stimulus funding for the mall. And last year, a bill that would have appropriated $100 million for mall repairs failed.

Republican Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas said mall funding wasn't an emergency. "It's entirely appropriate for Congress to fund repairs for the National Mall in the traditional process, but the American people are smart enough to know that it will do very little or absolutely nothing to provide economic stimulus," he said.

House Republican whip Eric Cantor of Virginia similarly derided efforts to "help upkeep the grass on the lawns of Washington."

This is the problem with the federal institutions and civic assets located within DC. As long as we are reliant on Congresspeople to fund the maintenance and improvement of these assets, which for better or worse, are constituent civic assets both for the nation and for our city, we are screwed.

Most of them spend all their time running against and railing against "Washington." So why should they consider investing in Washington, or Washington's role as the center of government, and its place at the center of interpreting the narrative of the nation, National Myth and Culture, etc.

On the other hand, as "Washingtonians" our hands are plenty full trying to get the municipal government to function and we don't have enough time to serve as adequate stewards of the "local" civic assets that carry both national and local meaning.

See "Running Against Washington" from a 1976 issue of Time Magazine and this blog entry from 2006, "Running against Washington means you're predisposed not to help it." We need another Mr. Smith...

Another reason to support an elected Attorney General in DC

rather than a mayorally appointed toadie and attack dog, (courtesy of DCWatch) comes from a letter from DC Attorney General Peter Nickles to DC City Council Chairman Vincent Gray, and the response by Councilmember Philip Mendelson, who also chairs the City Council Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary. From the conclusion of the Mendelson letter:

As the city's chief attorney it is your duty to work with both the legislative and executive branches of government, not to bypass the legislature by fiat — acting unilaterally to change the law because you could not get your way collaboratively last year on this matter.

The curfew is an issue, for you, of inconvenience. It is not a constitutional issue. It has a sound basis and there is an alternative the Executive should pursue with the courts. Regardless, it is not for you to decide and direct what laws will be followed.

Problems with the (DC) one party state

Means that you don't engage enough and work for better practices. I was thinking about this while scanning the article, "Early American Echoes in South Africa?" from the New York Times, about South Africa, and how democracy there is maturing, as a new party has calved off the African National Congress, and the new party has a greater concern for good and ethical government.

In DC, theoretically, you could have multiple parties, because of the ward-based election system. I went to college in Ann Arbor, where in the early 1970s, a more left "Human Rights Party" was created to get more progressive representation on the Ann Arbor City Council, by focusing on wards possessing large numbers of students as potential voters. At the time the Ann Arbor City Council was strongly Republican and conservative. Because of that experience (I went to school beginning in the late 1970s) I have always been attracted to ways of building broader participatory and representative governing structures in municipalities.

Parties like the Republicans and the now Statehood-Green party haven't been that successful at mounting Ward-focused efforts in DC elections. And Mayor Fenty has tied donations and access by ensuring that preferred candidates for Ward councilmember positions are well-financed, with hundreds of thousands of dollars of donations, which are enough to bludgeon and vanquish even the best non-machine candidates. This focus on the dough makes it unlikely that non-Democrats can win elections in DC, at least for awhile.

Note that while I favor the rule that provides for alternative representation other than the majority party for two of the at-large seats, I recognize that faux independents such as Michael Brown these days or William Lightfoot in the 1990s, can game the system. At the same time, the DC Republican party challenge to Michael Brown's independent status was doomed to fail, as anyone in our system of politics can change their party affiliation at any time.

Still we need to do (much) better.

How can an alleged "Constitutional Law expert", GWU professor and Ward 3 Councilmember Mary Cheh introduce legislation a couple days ago to make public demonstrations in the vicinity of private homes illegal? (I can't see how this will hold up as an exception to the First Amendment's provision for "freedom of assembly.")

And the new law banning consecutive year funding of earmarks to nonprofits misses the point. Allow consecutive year funding of nonprofits, but ban earmarks, and replace earmarks with an open and transparent contracting system that seeks proposals based on criteria, and having the proposals evaluated and ranked according to this criteria. See "D.C. Council hardens line on handouts to nonprofits" from the Examiner.

Proof about the need to organize for transit, that the process is just starting, not ending with the election of Barack Obama

In "Reality Check: Clinton ‘92: the Transport Politic blog makes the point that Bill Clinton campaigned on funding high speed rail and an early form of a carbon tax. One of the commenters describes how Conservative Democrats and then the Newt Gingrich-led Republican resurgence in 1994 led to the failure of these and other initiatives.

Certainly, as the quotation of Dean Gunderson and Robert Puentes in other entries today demonstrates, there are many issues with how roads are favored in current practices. I was joking to myself while writing that the best thing we could do for transit would be to transfer all the people in the Federal Transit Administration who work in the cost analysis unit to the Federal Highway Administration, and have them develop and apply a similar costing framework that would be applied to highway construction requests...

Being "right" vs. being strategic politically

When you are in a minority political party, you have to be strategic to keep in the game. Even though I am a political progressive, I am a strong adherent to Michels analysis of the "iron law of oligarchy" as described in the classic Political Parties (written in 1911) and therefore I believe you need a mix of political perspectives in political bodies to keep things on a more even keel (these days, I appreciate Jefferson's more radical tendencies about keeping government in check).

But it's very interesting to see three different political races involving Republican failure all revolving around the same theme: the current candidate-office holder wasn't conservative enough for the base, so they were challenged by more "conservative" types, who went on to victory in the primary. (Plus the national election. If the economy hadn't tanked, and had McCain picked a different vice presidential candidate, would the election have been much closer, both in terms of popular vote, and the electoral college?)

I am thinking of the Gilmore Senate campaign in Virginia, the Mara vs. Schwartz Council race in DC, and the Harris vs. Gilchrest and then Harris vs. Kratovil Congressional race in Maryland.

It's still fair to say that had George Allen not been a fool with his mouth, that he would have won the Senate race in 2004 in Virginia. But he lost, barely, to Jim Webb. And that strengthened the Democratic movement in Virginia. (There is a good story about a great miler who had a great kick--sprint--in the end, and he had every body psyched out that he was unbeatable after a certain point in the race, until he was--the first time, which unleashed multiple defeats by competitors no longer psyched out, no longer believing he was invincible.) Republican Tom Davis would have been a tough candidate for Mark Warner to defeat, but Davis couldn't get through the party-controlled nomination process.

The Eastern Shore Congressional race in Maryland is a bit different. It looks like the Democrat Kratovil just squeaked by Harris. But a more moderate Republican likely would have won.

Similarly, in DC, there was a Republican on Council, Schwartz, who is pretty moderate, but still Republican. To the doctrinaire, she was hardly Republican and ripe for challenge. But the doctrinaire didn't consider electability in the general election vs. the primary, and they set up their candidate, Patrick Mara, up for almost certain defeat.

David Catania, then a Republican, won a seat on Council due to an odd situation. He ran during a special election, in 1997, at a time when special elections and DC Council races were not taken nearly as seriously by the politicos, or at least the campaigns weren't run as professionally and as hard core. The election was for an at-large seat vacated upon the officeholder's election to Council Chair. Catania's opponent was a longtime political hack, former Councilmember, Arrington Dixon.

Around then a bunch of politicians were defeated in a demand for change--this was during the period when the Control Board was created by the Federal Government to oversee the financially bankrupt DC government, and this opened up the political discourse a wee bit. And when it came time for the regular election, in 1998, he was ensconced in the Council, and in a much better position to stay on Council, despite not being a Democrat in an overwhelmingly Democratic city.

I would argue that the election of Kwame Brown, Harry Thomas Jr. and Marion Barry in 2004 was a throwback or reaction to this change, something I wrote about in this blog entry in 2005, "Tom Sherwood, Duncan Spencer, Anwar Amal, and thinking about what I call the 'Uncivil War'." I think Michael Brown's election is part of this same theme, also see these columns by Jonetta Rose Barras, "Legislative ambitions" and "Channeling Fenty’s endorsement of Mara" from the Examiner.

Gary Imhoff opines in the latest issue of themail that with the failure of Mara and Schwartz (she ran as a write in) in the election, it will be impossible for small parties to win seats on the DC City Council.

I believe that this is true, because the post-2006 election, when the Ward 4 and Ward 7 Council seats came up for special election because the officeholders rose up to Mayor and Council Chairman respectively, found that no longer was it amateur hour for running campaigns. In the old days, it may have been possible, just as David Catania won for the first time in 1997, for an outlier to win. With the 2006 election, the Fenty machine threw its resources behind Muriel Bowser, and Vincent Gray did the same in Ward 7. Outliers, like Ward 4's Renee Bowser of the Statehood-Green Party, had no chance.

The Post doesn't get it, or at least it didn't in terms of its editorial endorsements. Those of us with the conventional wisdom--from "Bucking a Tide in D.C." in the Post:

It's been dismaying to see a tide of conventional wisdom dismiss Mr. Mara solely because he is a Republican in a Democratic city. Even before the election, some have declared faux independent Michael A. Brown the winner and incumbent Carol Schwartz, who is waging a write-in bid, the next runner-up.

were thinking about the reality of how you get elected in this town, the demographics, and the reality of precinct-ward based political mechanics.

Although Mark Fisher wrote a blog entry (I don't know if it ran in the paper) "Mara vs. Schwartz vs. Brown Is One to Watch," the reality was that Michael Brown was a shoe-in after the primary, unless for the first time Schwartz could run a disciplined campaign comparable to that of President-elect Obama, and win a write-in campaign. Like now deceased former City Councilmember and Council Chairman David Clark, who had city-wide appeal that transcended demographics, Carol Schwartz has some of that kind of appeal, but evidently not enough, and as the city is changing, politicians from the old days are less well known to increasing numbers of the electorate. Mara was unknown.

Just like how the presidential election isn't just about popular vote but about the Electoral College--a state by state process--local elections are ward by ward, and precinct by precinct. If competence was the basis of qualification, then we'd have different results. But the people on Council win because of their ability to meet a variety of preferences and "qualifications" demanded by various tranches of the electorate. The things I care about--planning, transportation, building a local economy, energy, the built environment--don't matter too much to large sections of the electorate, or at least, people who think like me haven't done a good job in making the case that those issues should matter to the rest of the electorate.

(E.g., sit on the dais at a Council hearing, and face the wrath of "you care about this issue, but where were you in our Ward when we had to deal with X issue?" The questioner isn't too interested in a discourse on good government, and open, fair, transparent and robust processes.) ----------

I do think by the way that Muriel Bowser is likely a future Mayor. She's smart and I think she can pull it off. The challenge is to strengthen her knowledge about issues towards the progressive end of the issue continuum, and towards transformational rather than bureaucratic thinking which because she worked for a county government, is tough for her...

Transit on the ballot

The Overhead Wire has a nice roundup here, "Transit Election Results Central."

2. This statement is from CALPIRG on the successful ballot measure there for high speed rail:

Californians Say “Yes!” to High-Speed Rail!

Statement by Emily Rusch, Transportation Advocate for CALPIRG

“We couldn’t be more thrilled with voters’ approval of Prop 1A. With this vote, Californians decided to reduce our oil dependence, to build alternatives to traffic and long airport lines, and to help solve global warming. Californians were also voting to boost the economy.

“Prop 1A is another historic example of California leading the nation. This vote confirms California’s commitment to building high-speed rail. Now California leaders must continue fighting for the project in order to start laying the tracks as quickly as possible. Before we spend bond funds on construction, Congress and private companies will have to match California ’s commitment to the train. We need that to happen quickly because this project cannot be delayed any longer. We saw gas prices hover well above $4 a gallon in California all summer. California has three of the top five most congested regions in the country, costing commuters billions in time and money. Continued oil dependence puts our environment, our economy, and national security at risk. And we know that we need to take dramatic steps now in order to prevent the most devastating impacts of global warming. For all of these reasons, Californians urgently need the high-speed train up and running.”

CALPIRG and our student chapters launched a campaign more than one year ago to build the support necessary to keep the high-speed rail project on track.

Earlier this year:

Our citizen outreach staff had face-to-face conversations with more than 120,000 Californians to educate the public about the proposed high-speed rail project.

In March, CALPIRG Students organized 50 college students to participate in a spring break tour of the high-speed rail route, holding nine different media events along the way and meeting with two dozen elected officials to raise critical visibility and support for the project.

Throughout the spring and summer CALPIRG advocates worked with Assemblywoman Cathleen Galgiani, Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, and other tireless supporters in the legislature to pass AB 3034 and put Prop 1A on the ballot. When the bill passed we collected more than 2,000 petition signatures to the governor, urging him to sign the bill.

Since Prop 1A was put on the ballot in September:

· CALPIRG organized nine different educational forums on college campuses, inviting speakers to educate the campus community about Prop 1A.

· We authored op-eds and commented to the media on the benefits of the project in print media, television and radio stations.

· We helped reach out to elected officials and other organizations to build the expansive list of endorsements for Prop 1A.

· We’ve held dozens of visibility events on street corners, on college campuses, at airports, and on freeway overpasses to raise awareness about Prop 1A.

· In the final weeks we made a video and organized a day of action that reached out to more than 200,000 Californians, mostly college students, to urge their peers to vote “yes” on Prop 1A.

“CALPIRG will be there to make sure that the commitments of Prop 1A are met, and to make sure that the public is protected in the process of rolling out this project and enlisting contractors.

“Luckily, California leaders like Speaker Pelosi, Senator Feinstein, Congressman Jim Costa, and many others in Congress are strong supporters of high-speed rail. We thank them, and so many others, for their past leadership. We urge them to stay the course and see this project through.

“Looking ahead, the impacts of Prop 1A’s passage extend well beyond California. Other regions, from the Midwest to Florida , are also considering high-speed rail to help meet their growing transportation needs. With this vote, California is again leading the way. I look forward to riding the train!”

3. This does remind me of the article in Governing Magazine about states being the more likely place for government innovation to happen. And the description of the Calpirg campaign effort shows what has to be done to win on these kinds of efforts. (I am skimreading a book right now, Politics of Historic Districts, about campaigning and historic preservation. It covers the ground quite well, laying out what's taken me a number of years to figure out.)

4. Even though I prefer Democrats, I am a bit sorry about Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory losing the governor's race in North Carolina as he was a strong proponent of light rail there. According to this article from the Raleigh News & Observer, "Claims Dept: McCrory and light rail," in the Republican primary, an opponent ran ads against McCrory that criticized the light rail system over overspending (do infrastructure construction projects of this sort ever really come in on budget?)

From the Greensboro News-Record editorial endorsement of McCrory:

On McCrory's watch, Charlotte's downtown has become a model for other cities. On his watch, city voters resoundingly backed a sales tax increase to create the first light-rail system in the state. McCrory has favored mass transit for years, as well as sidewalks and green spaces....

Obviously, McCrory can't take all the credit for Charlotte's prosperity. It has had many champions over the years, among them a formidable banking industry. But he has helped keep the city moving forward and reaching higher. And he has remained front and center as Charlotte copes with the uncertain future of one of its major employers, struggling Wachovia Bank.

McCrory also was the founding member of the N.C. Metropolitan Coalition, which unites mayors from towns and cities to work on common issues, including street gangs.

Similarly, while I can't claim I love Norm Coleman (he changed his party affiliation from Democrat to Republican after he was elected mayor of St. Paul, as Senator from Minnesota, he has to be attuned to the issues of cities. We need that perspective in Congress. Actually, that was a strength of Virginia's Tom Davis (before entering Congress he was Chair of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors), although my criticism of him was as chair of the House Government Reform Committee, he didn't take the opportunity to hold hearings on how cities and other local government agencies let themselves get screwed out of everything, including their underwear, in terms of providing stadium-arena funding to professional sports), and Mike Taylor, a Congressman and former Mayor from Dayton, Ohio. (See "Turner leads Mitakides" from the Dayton Daily News.)

In the restroom at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport last night, I was laughing to myself about the old line "I don't vote for the party, I vote for the [best person]" line (although usually the word "man" was used rather than best person), thinking that I vote for the best ideology and rational approach, not the wo/man or party.

5. And according to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, "Sound Transit's package is passing; I-985 falling short." The latter was a referendum initiated by a referendum gladfly that including lifting HOV limitations outside of two 3 hour periods.

Voting tomorrow in DC

Since I am traveling, I voted last week. There aren't many contested seats in DC elections, except for the at-large councilmember race, where two people are elected. DC has a rule that major parties can only have one seat in each at large election (every two years). Some people seem to think this is anti-democratic, such as "Cover Story: End Republican Welfare!" from the Washington City Paper, but I think it's fine, a bit closer (albeit barely) to parliamentary voting systems (i.e., Europe, Canada, Israel) which protect and provide for minority party representation, instead of the U.S.'s winner-take-all minority be damned system. (I don't have the time to write extensively about proportional voting systems, which typify parlimentary systems in Europe, but it's quite interesting.)

I don't like to divulge who I vote for, since I testify before various committees, and implore Councilmembers to do various things, and it's helpful for them to think that I voted for them, anyway, there were three people I wanted to vote for, and I could only vote for two. I voted for David Schwartzman, not because I agree so much with his agenda (I am now a more conservative progressive I suppose, it's a long story for another blog entry, but see the book The Future Once Happened Here for some insight into my thinking) but because we need alternative viewpoints on a Council that has a very constrained world-view and way of thinking about the world.

The other vote was between Patrick Mara, the Republican nominee, and Carol Schwartz, the sitting Republican Councilmember who Mara whupped. She's running a write-in campaign. I wanted to vote for Patrick because he's smart, and we need more smart people on Council (talk to some of them and you'll see why the addition of intelligence to the body is a good thing) but he is solidly behind the Mayor on the school improvement agenda, and since I don't think the regime really understands what the problem is with the school system and what to do, I don't think that's a good thing. And I don't agree with Carol Schwartz on a number of issues, but she has fought for better government over the decades in a city that doesn't respect or care very much about having good government. And she has put forth legislation to better address how the city deals with property matters, and since it is a very flawed process currently, that's a good thing, and deserving of our support in terms of a write-in vote.

Kwame Brown is likely to win anyway. And candidates Michael Brown and Mark Long are Democrats in independent clothing, running for election as a way to get on Council despite being Democrats.

In any case, vote.

A customer walks by the word 'Vote' as it's being painted onto the window at Frager's Hardware, in Washington on Sunday, Nov. 2, 2008. Voter turnout for Tuesday's election is expected to reach record levels. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)