Ten Signs the Pope is Coming to Town

Ten Signs the Pope is coming to the DMV:

1. Fox 5 News has started playing religious sounding music before segments about the Pope's visit.
2. News coverage about the Pope is focused on the traffic nightmares his visit will cause.   
3. DC motorcades will finally get some style (the Popemobile is neat-o mosquito.  The black SUV not so much).   
4. Federal workers get a day off to 'work' from home
5. No one who lives here will actually get to see the Pope.
6. Republican hardliners in Congress can't believe the Holy Father is gonna bust in on their media time right before a potential government shutdown.  Doesn't the Pope know Obama is a 'Kenyan Muslim Saul Alinksy-lovin' terrorist?'
7. People are placing bets on who will get a stern talking-to in a Pope speech, but the odds in Vegas are all over the map.  There are a LOT of people here who need a stern talking-to.  
8. All ten of the city's fashionistas are breathing easy.  It was hard to compete with the last Pope's bling.  The new guy's a piece of cake.     
9. The National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception is all like "The National Cathedral who?"
10. Everyone wants to know what's going to happen to the guy who's been protesting the church's handling of child sexual abuse at the corner of 34th and Massachusetts for over a decade. 

Random MOCO Pic of the Day--A Reminder that It's Been a Violent Summer in the DMV

I saw this car sign while I was out and about yesterday and it reminded me what a violent summer it's been in the DMV.

Things are especially bad in DC where the total number of murders, 106 as of September 5th, just surpassed the total number of murders for all of 2014.

Things are better in MOCO, but the trend lines are worrying.  In 2013 Montgomery County recorded 8 murders.  In 2014 the number of murders increased 137% to 19.  As of September 5th, the county has recorded 12 murders.

We don't know if these increases are short term aberrations or the beginning of something more substantial.  Either way, it's been a long, hard summer for too many DMV families.    

Tips for Knowing Whether that Blue Crab is from Maryland and Virginia

It's official.  Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe thinks Maryland's blue crabs should be called Virginia crabs.      

Yup, that's right, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe is not only making a play for Washington's football team (which plays in Largo, Maryland); he's now claiming bragging rights to the delicacy on which we Marylanders put our old bay.

How dare he?

Ok, he's Terry McAuliffe.  That's a dumb question.

A better question is how the purist Marylander can you tell if his or her blue crab is from Virginian?

Based on my misspent youth in Virginia, I've put together a handy dandy list of sure-fire signs your crab is from the Old Dominion.

A Virginia crab would...

1. Like grits and think you're a communist for putting anything besides salt and butter on them.
2. Expect the ice tea to be sweet
3. Confuse paprika for Old Bay
4. Re-enact the War Between the Crabs on the weekends.
5. Drive like a maniac and blame it on Maryland and DC residents
6. Brag about low taxes while complaining about the horrible condition of state roads
7. Love Jesus and liquor
8. Make you feel guilty for not loving Jesus enough
9. Say 'bless your heart' instead of 'F*&K you! 
10. Cast votes that confuse the heck out of the rest of the country

But never fear, Maryland and Virginia crabs will always set aside their differences to hate on West Virginia Catfish.      

Let's Talk about Gentrification and Race

In the last month the Washington Post has published 3 stories about race and gentrification.

The first detailed a man who put up anti-gentrification signs in his Brightwood yard.  When a Washington Post reporter asked him why he put the sings up he explained, "I don’t want people to come in and diminish the affordable housing stock for black Americans, because [black Americans] have nowhere else to go,   There are plenty of places for white Americans to go.”

The second detailed the changing demographics of DC's Chinatownn neighborhood.  Basically, Chinatown isn't very Chinese anymore.  Only 300 Chinese people live in the neighborhood, down from 3,000.  And, the last building still housing a significant number of Chinese people--many of them low income tenants--is up for sale.   

The third was a column in yesterday's paper by metro columnist Courtland Milloy.  Milloy observed that there is something vital missing from the revitalization of 14th Street--black people.

Although I usually avoid the comments sections on anything posted on the internet, the comments in these articles tell us a lot about how ordinary citizens view gentrification.

Some people don't want to acknowledge that gentrification involves racial change at all.  It's all about the money, they say.

Others think black folks are being whiny.  One commentator dismissed Milloy's article by saying "It [14th Street] was a complete sewer" before the millennials arrived.  Others think black folks are being racist--"Racism on public display" said one commenter on the Brightwood article.  

Still others look for the bright side.  Sure, black folks often end up leaving gentrifying areas, but they profit handsomely when they sell their houses for millions of dollars.  

Then, there are the people who come at it from left field.  A reader of the Chinatown article applauded the declining Chinese population as a sign of diversity--"We are seeing here the realization of President Obama's dream to integrate neighborhoods. Washington is becoming more diverse.  We should all celebrate that."

What should we make of all of this?  Or, put another way, what are the unspoken rules that govern how we can talk about gentrification?  From the comments sections of these three articles I see 3 informal rules in play:  First, most people acknowledge gentrification involves racial change (in DC that means a growing white population and a declining black one).  Second, black people shouldn't talk about it.  Third, if they do talk about it, they'll be sanctioned politely (e.g. by being reminded that they sold their houses for a profit) or impolitely (e.g. by being reminded what a mess their old neighborhood was before the white millennials arrived). In short, we can talk about gentrification, but we can't talk about gentrification and race. 

I think this is silly and unfair.  

People form attachments to place.  Black people do this.  White people do this.  So do Asians and Hispanics.  We all do it.  

My mom still lives in the house I grew up in.  There's been a lot of turnover in her neighborhood, but I still look at every house and remember the kid who lived in it when I was young.  Three houses down is "Benny's house."  Across the street from Benny is "Lawrence's house."  It doesn't matter that Benny and Lawrence moved out of the neighborhood before I graduated high school.  That's how I see those houses. 

The couple who owned the house my husband and I bought in Silver Spring once had the previous owner stop by for a visit.  The woman wanted to see what her old house looked like inside.  She'd loved the house and wanted to make sure it was still being taken care of.  

People fall in love with places--rooms, houses, streets, entire neighborhoods.  They become a map of our heart.  The place you had your first kiss, or the place you started a family.  So, we shouldn't be surprised that black people who grew up in, or lived in neighborhoods that used to be predominantly black feel vertigo, sadness, and even anger that their neighborhood isn't the same anymore.  

We also shouldn't be surprised that newcomers aren't always welcome.  The racial shifts that occur with gentrification don't happen in a void.  Gentrification isn't a random, value-neutral resorting of the population.  Historically, black people concentrated in cities (or certain neighborhoods in them) because they had little choice.  Redlining, landlord bias, and limited resources meant their housing choices were circumscribed.  These neighborhoods might not have been the places their residents would choose in a perfect world, but that's where they ended up. And, overtime, they made those places their own.  So, when the newcomers arrive, the 'old-timers' often feel like they're back to square one.  The place they made their own is suddenly no longer theirs.  They can't afford the higher rent their landlord wants to charge.  Or, they can't cover the new, higher property taxes.  Or, they can afford to stay but now feel out of place.     

Instead of ignoring, scolding, or deriding people unhappy with gentrification, we should have some empathy.  We've all felt a connection to a place.  Gentrification often rips that apart.  I know empathy alone won't solve the problems that accompany gentrification, but it's not a bad place to start.  Based on the comments sections of these three articles, it is in short supply.

Random MOCO Pic of the Day--Enfant Terrible

For the MOCO workers whose job it is to paint over graffiti, it probably feels a lot like weeding a garden this time of year.  No matter how many weeds you pull up, they always come back, sometimes overnight.  I'll give it to our county workers, though--they don't let fresh graffiti stay up long in our neighborhood.  

That said, I was happy to see this enfant terrible shining through county's paint yesterday.  Graffiti is frequently ugly and unimaginative, but sometimes it makes you laugh.  I hope this terrible infant's parent will be back. 

Enfant terrible, 495 underpass, Sligo Creek Trail at Forest Glenn

Winning Badly--DC and The DC United Stadium Deal

When you win, there's no need to rub the loser's face in it.  You won after all.

Apparently, the District Government  never learned that lesson.  Instead, they pulled a proverbial Christian Laettner.  Scoring the win, and still stomping the competition in the face.

The back story:  DC United has been trying to get a new stadium built in DC for a long time.  In 2007 it came close to a deal with former Mayor Adrian Fenty only to see it fall apart.  Seven years later the team was back at the negotiating table with Mayor Vincent Gray, and in the waning days of his administration, the team struck a deal with the city.  Unfortunately, Gray's successor (Muriel Bowser) was slow to put it in motion.  Although Bowser supported the deal, six months into her mayorship she still hadn't acquired a contested parcel of land necessary for construction to begin.     

After little progress with Bowser's administration, it's no wonder DC United started to question the sincerity of the District's support for the stadium.  The new mayor's promises weren't matched by actions.

So, in swoops Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe.  Ever the salesman, he pitched a location in Loudon County for the team.  Then, word of the meetings between team officials and Virginia officials leaked to the press.

So, how did the District react?  In front of the cameras and in interviews with the press they were blase.  Behind the scene, someone clearly lit a fire under Bowser's well-tailored pant-suit. 

A few days later, on June 9th, the District held a news conference to announce it had 'sealed' the deal.  Leaving aside the obvious question--wasn't the deal already 'sealed'?--how did the city comport itself during the announcement?

With unwarranted (and slightly wacky) braggadocio.  

According to Phil Mendelson, the chairman of the city council, the deal was a win because the proposed site in DC didn't look like a cornfield.  Fortunately, council member Jack Evans clarified for people wondering what corn had to do with soccer by pointing to the DC blueprints on a nearby easel--"it certainly doesn't look like Loudoun County."

Not sure when Loudoun County started growing corn--isn't that where all the rich people and their horses live?--or when it became a mild invective. 

Full disclosure--I would also prefer the new stadium be in DC rather than Loudoun.  However...the proper reaction from the city was contrition not chest-pounding.  DC United fans have been waiting a long time for their stadium--a lot longer than the city's baseball fans waited for theirs.  And, the deal still isn't done.  Bowser promised to have the land parcel secured by September, and I hope she manages it.  But, it ain't time to stick a fork in it just yet. 

Vamos United wherever you land! 
 

Scandal, Chevy Chase, MD Edition

No two scandals are alike.

Each scandal tells you something about the place it happens.  Take Chevy Chase, MD.  A write in candidate for a town council seat won against an incumbent, who was running unopposed.  No one, least of all the incumbent's supporters, saw it coming.  Now, the town is traumatized.

I know.  Pick your jaw up from the floor.  It's as bad as election night at Fox News in 2012.  So, what are the issues behind said trauma?   

1. In Chevy Chase it is hard to get a permit to cut a tree cut down.  You have to fill out a lot of paperwork and explain yourself.  And, then, you'll probably still get turned down.  

 (These people clearly DON'T know you're lawyer!) 

2.   If you cut down a tree without a permit, you can spend six months in jail. 

(Do you suppose Chevy Chase has its own stocks and whipping post?)

3.  The campaign for the write in candidate used social media to organize.  As one resident explained to the Washington Post "It wasn't a fair fight.  There were some people in the know through social media, and that’s a modern phenomenon."  

(Translation:  Don't this town's upstarts know the 21st century hasn't arrived yet in Chevy Chase?) 

 
4.  One resident can't eat on his deck.  The town's regulations for new building are so stringent he couldn't build the deck large enough to fit a table.  

(Can malnutrition be far behind?)

 


When you're done giving to the victims of Nepal, you might want to consider setting aside a little for those poor traumatized souls in Chevy Chase, MD. 

Stereotyping the Suburbs

White and wealthy.  Car-dependent.  Monotonous uniformity.  A Stepford Wife lurking behind every door.   

That's the suburbs for you.


Unless you look at the data.  In many parts of the the DMV, these stereotypes simply don't apply.   Bethesda and Silver Spring--both in Montgomery County--are more public transit oriented than many parts of neighboring DC.  Montgomery County is also just as ethnically diverse as, if not more so than DC.  While whites and African Americans are the two dominant ethnic groups in both counties, Asians and Latinos account for a much larger share of MOCO's total population (14.9 and 18.3% respectively) than they do in DC (3.9 and 10% respectively).

Strangely, the stereotypes persist.  And, as usual, it seems to boil down to our collective obsession and hysteria about Millennials.

A May 8th blog post on the Washington Post's Digger blog is a case in point.  The post (The Real Challenge for Cities: What Happens When Millennials Have Babies and the Suburbs Beckon?) covered a panel held at the Urban Land Institute.  I didn't attend the panel, but if the blog review is any indication, the goal of the panel wasn't to answer the question 'will they stay or will they go?' so much as brainstorm how to get them to stay.  

I get it.  Everyone wants a piece of the millennial pie.  They are a large demongraphic with a lot of money to spend.  Right now they spend most of it (at least in DC) on overpriced rents and craft beer.  But, they are about to spend a lot more money.  That's right, millennials are now beginning to do 'adult' things like buy houses and have kids, which entails a whole new category of purchasing (beware the plastic crap you accumulate and trip over at night, inadvertently teaching your kids their first curse words).   

I'm also sympathetic to wanting to keep/attract more families in the city--millennial or otherwise.  One of the biggest unintended consequences of city leaders' millennial fetish is that cities are becoming uniform in their own way, as places rebuilt for wealthy people without kids.  The micro-unit trend is just the most obviouis example. 

But..and there's always a but isn't there?...I resent the smug undertone that often underpins the whole millennial fetish.  The effort to keep them in the city when they're ready to have kids, for example, is often legitimized as a movement to save said offspring from the presumed horrors of the suburbs.

One of the panelist at the Urban Land Institute, Sarah Snider Komppa, described her life growing up in the suburbs as "unfulfilling."  "You’re shuttled from one place where everyone is the same as you to another place where everyone is the same as you.”

I have no doubt Komppa's description captured her actual experiences.  My suburban childhood wasn't all that different, except for the quirky southerners that populated it (bless their hearts, every last one).  However, the suburb I grew up in is not what it used to be.  Nor, I suspect, is Komppa's.

And, that's the problem.  The suburbs are a convenient bogeyman for urban boosters.  The suburbs that Komppa and other urban boosters bemoan is really a small slice of modern suburbia--the so called exurbs.

The intellectual fuzziness of the 'making cities work for millennials' movement is annoying.  But, mostly it just feels underhanded.  Like a mask for something that feels, underneath it all, a lot like a push for consolidating gentrification.   





 

Universities and the Yik Yak Monster

"Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose."  Me and Bobby McGee, Janis Joplin

When Janis sang about freedom, it was in romantic, if melancholy terms. 

On the internet, by contrast, freedom usually means the right to engage in the chaotic smack-down of anyone you disagree with.  And, by chaotic smackdown, I mean the right to threaten people with whom you disagree with physical harm, rape, torture, public humiliation, and/or death.  There's no better example of this right now than Yik Yak. 

For the uninitiated, Yik Yak is an anonymous social media app.  The preview on I-Tunes says that "Yik Yak acts like a local bulletin board for your area by showing the most recent posts from other users around you. It allows anyone to connect and share information with others without having to know them." 

'Yaks' (anonymous comments) can only be read by people within 1.5 miles of the poster's location.  The geographic nature of Yik Yak makes it  popular on college campuses. There are enough people around to start conversations, and all of those people share some basic things in common (age, shared classes, etc.) that make them inclined to talk to each other.  

Unfortunately, the anonymity of Yik Yak means people feel free to say hateful things they probably wouldn't say publicly, or even in the company of these same peers.   

Last year, when students protested police brutality in Ferguson during peaceful events on American University's campus, for example, yakers on campus sounded like they'd just walked out of George Wallace's Alabama.  For those with the stomach for it, here's a sampling of the vitriol.   

Yik Yak has also been used to denigrate or otherwise humiliate people.  A New York Times story on Yik Yak recounts a student reading a yak that compared her to a hippo.  Professors aren't immune either.  The same article recounts a series of yaks made during a class about a female professor.  Few of them were printable in a family newspaper.  

Most recently, students in a feminist group at nearby University of Mary Washington claim they've been stalked and harassed on yik yak.  Students in the group report receiving threats for their activist work and having their real time movements on campus reported on yik yak--a move that made students feel like they were in constant danger. 

So, how do college administrators respond to all of these problems? 

Well, let's just say that in the hands of college administrators, freedom sounds like a flimsy excuse to do nothing. 

To be fair to college administrators (and their PR hacks), most do issue public condemnations of the content of the yaks.  But, the great majority stop there.  After the ruckus at Mary Washington, for example, the university issued a statement that said in part that the university has "no recourse for cyberbullying" and directed students to complain directly to Yik Yak.  Not surprisingly, companies tell victims to call police--and on a college campus that means calling campus police. And the buck passing begins. 

Colleges can't make their students behave.  But, they could certainly make it hard for them to misbehave.  Many students and professors who have been harassed and threatened on Yik Yak argue that their universities should block access to anonymous apps like Yik Yak on campus wifi systems. 

Unfortunately, most colleges and universities refuse to do so, justifying their inaction on free speech grounds.  In fact, that's exactly how a spokesperson from Mary Washington explained the school's decision to a reporter with the Washington Post:  "There are First Amendment concerns when you are a state institution." 

I don't buy this argument one bit. 

Blocking Yik Yak from a university's wifi does not block speech.  Rather it blocks a particular venue for speech.  And,universities have been blocking venues for free speech for years--the only difference is that these venues are in real rather than cyber space.  Many universities, for example, have set up 'free speech'/'protest' zones.  Normally, they are tucked far away from any venue that might be used to host speakers, and thus draw protestors.  In effect, the university says you can speak freely on campus, but only in designated spaces.   

It feels hypocritical then, to hear universities claim they can't do the same in cyberspace, especially when there's ample evidence that Yik Yak isn't just a venue for hateful speech, but threatening/dangerous speech as well.   

Perhaps universities aren't worried about preserving free speech so much as avoiding lawsuits from Yik Yak?     

Why Is It So Hard for Neighborhoods to Recover from Riots?

Broken glass.  Looted stores.  Burned out cars.

They aren't pretty.  But, cleaning them up shouldn't be that hard, right?  Sweep the sidewalk.  Clean the store and install better security.  Call the tow truck.  It certainly sounds easier than cleaning up after an earthquake, where collapsed buildings create toxic piles of concrete, bodies, and burst sewage pipes, streets are littered with downed (and sometimes) live power lines, and clean water is hard to find.   

In truth, though, riots can sometimes take almost as long to 'clean up' as natural disasters.

Why is that?  Why do some areas hit by riots take decades to turn around when the physical damage is, in the wider scheme of things, quite small? 

Riots precipitate disinvestment.  The events themselves don't (always) create that much dammage.  But, they encourage people to disinvest from an area.  People move away.  Others close their businesses.  Squatters fill the empty spaces.  In turn, these decisions encourage people who might come to the area, and invest in it, to look elsewhere.

Let's use a hypothetical example--Jane Doe, who owns a laundromat on a street hit by riots.  She owns her business but rents the storefront from Max Money, a local landlord.  Ms. Doe's store is set on fire by looters throwing Molotov cocktails at police.  A few cocktails miss the mark and land in the laundromat.  Some of Ms. Doe's dryers are damaged in the fire.  The building's facade is also dammaged.  The wood frame around the door and front window caught fire and the glass windows shattered.  The linoleum floor at the front of the store also melted, leaving an acrid, chemical smell in the building.   

Fortunately for Ms. Doe and Mr. Money, the building and the business in it weren't engulfed in flames.  But, there was enough damage that reopening the next day isn't possible.

So, what does Jane Doe do?

Her first decision--should she reopen the business--hinges on several factors.  She needs to find out, for example, if her insurance company will cover the cost of her damaged equipment.  She also needs to know if her insurance will cover fixed costs--e.g. rent--while repairs are being made.  If those costs aren't covered, Jane Doe may have to consult a banker to see if she can get a short term loan.

What Max Money decides to do is also an important factor in Jane Doe's decision.  Jane needs to know if Mr. Max will fix the window, entrance, and floor.  She also needs to know his timeline.  Will he do it quickly?  She may also ask Mr. Max to suspend rent while repairs are made.  And, to cut her some slack while the business gets back on its feet.  Mr. Max, though, may depend on his steady rental income and demand payment. 

Finally, Jane has to want to reopen.  She may be angry at the rioters.  She may also feel threatened/unwelcome in the neighborhood.  She may not know, for example, that the fire was unintentional.  And, as a result, she may wonder if she was targeted by rioters.

Not surprisingly, lots of Jane Does don't reopen businesses in these circumstances.

Then, a bad reputation settles in.  People point and say "That's the place where the riots happened."  Others say, "The people here are prone to riot."  Or "'Those people' can't be trusted." 

The narrative that emerges isn't usually fair.  Collective blame for individual actions.  Amnesia about the actual events that set off the riots.

But, the narrative sticks nonetheless.  20 years later, the neighborhood often looks a lot like it did when Jane Doe left.

I wish a different fate for you Baltimore.  Justice for Freddie Gray, and reinvestment for Baltimore's forgotten neighborhoods.    

     

 

  

What will Negative Net-Migraiton look like in the DMV?

Today's Washington Post has a provocative article about new census data showing that population growth in the region is slowing down.  Most of the slow down is attributed to out-migration rather than birth dynamics.  Basically, more people are moving out of the region than are moving into it.  Population growth hasn't ceased in large part because birth rates are making up the shortfall. 

There is, of course, variation within the region.   Net migration (number of people moving to a place minus the number of people leaving it) is still positive in parts of the region.    DC still has positive net migration.  So, too, do Loudoun, Prince Georges, Montgomery, and Prince William Counties.  However, the city of Alexandria, and Arlington and Fairfax Counties now have negative net migration.

The Post attributes the shift in large part to "sequestration," which led to cuts in government budgets across the board.  Although many municipal leaders hoped the cuts would be restored, most haven't been.  And, Virginia localities, where beltway bandits set up shop, took the biggest hit.

The hand-wringing has already commenced.  Unlike other parts of the country, the DMV has experienced a largely uninterrupted growth spurt, nearly 20 years by some estimates.  Even the recession didn't really slow things down here.  In fact, people who lost jobs in other parts of the country often found work in DC--as was the case with one of the out-migrants profiled in the story.

So, what are the consequences of negative net-migration?  As with most shifts, there will be winners and losers.

Likely winners? 
* The region's commuters might see a small, but measurable improvement on commuter routes.
* So, too, might metro riders.  Metro ridership is already down.  Factors posited to explain the drop include rising prices, poor reliability, packed trains, more telework, and a reduction in the transportation subsidy for federal workers.  Ridership might decrease even more if negative net-migration continues to be a trend.  In fact, most migrants to the area have been public transportation-loving millennials.  If they opt to go elsewhere, then the trains might not be as packed.   
* First time home-buyers might benefit as well.  Inventory has been low since the 2008 recession.  Indeed, many homeowners put off selling their homes, choosing to wait until housing prices rebounded to their bubble (or near bubble) levels.  However, people who lose their jobs, or can't find ones to begin with (see: sequestration) are often willing to take a little less money when they sell. 
* The DMV's middle and lower-income residents.  They aren't complete winners (see below), but a slow down might make things a wee bit more affordable for people without top dollar incomes.  For the last ten years or so most development has been targeted to the luxury market.  If those people aren't coming here, developers of newly built apartments and condos might lower their prices.  Fewer people and somewhat lower prices also eases the displacement pressure the city's low income residents face. 

Likely losers? 
* Municipal Tax Coffers.  Fewer people means fewer people to tax.  And, fewer tax receipts means either tax hikes, or cuts in service.  It's hard to predict where tax hikes or cuts would be focused.  Most likely, though, there will be more cuts than taxes.  And, as a general rule, cuts usually hurt the poor more than the wealthy.
* Home Sellers.  People trying to sell their homes in the DMV have been incredibly lucky when compared with the country as a whole.  The DMV's housing values didn't fall as much as those in many other parts of the country, and they rebounded more quickly as well.  As a result, it's been a sellers market for much of the last 5 years (purchasers at the height of the bubble excepted).  With fewer people churning into the city, it will be harder to sell houses, and probably take more time as well.
* The DMV's Hipster Street Cred.  After years of being described as 'dowdy,' crime-ridden, wonky, arrogant, and type A, the DMV finally started appearing in all those urban top 10 lists.  You know, those lists of the 'Top 10 place to be a hipster,' or the 'Top 10 places to drink craft beer.'  That could change if the millennials decide to head elsewhere.  What's a hipster wonk to do? I guess they can always go back to yakking about policy over decidedly unhip (gasp) pitchers of beer.   

Robert McDonnell and His Band of Merry Thieves.

Robert F. McDonnell really doesn't want to go to jail.  His friends in high places don't want him to either.


To clarify, it's not because McDonnell's got any actual political friends left.  No, McDonnell's conviction makes him toxic for anyone still in the game.  Can't be seen hanging out with a convicted felon, even if he is out on bail pending an appeal.

So, why do members of the political class care whether McDonnell spends time jail? Turns out the political class is afraid that if McDonnell goes to jail, they might soon follow him.  The fear is so palpable that a bi-partisan cadre of former states attorneys general have signed onto an amicus brief in support of McDonnell's appeal of his conviction. 

Let's look at their reasoning.  And to prepare yourself, be sure to tighten your cynic helmets.  You'll need them to take what's coming with a straight face.

State's rights.  Yup.  This illustrious crew thinks that Robert McDonnell should have faced state rather than federal charges.  State corruption laws are looser, you see, so if he'd been tried in the 'right' place, he'd have gotten a slap on the wrist, not a prison sentence.  I wonder if this crew would consider writing an amicus brief on behalf of all the people put in jail on federal drug charges?  You know, that heroin dealer would be out of jail now if he'd only been held to a lower standard.    

Lunch with the local Lobbyist is now in peril.  I can't even muster the appropriate sarcasm.  I'll just quote from the brief:  "Dangling the threat of criminal liability over every lunch with a lobbyist and every meeting with an interest group would impede the proper functioning of state and local governments."  You may not have followed the trial, but suffice it to say that Johnny Williams, the businessman trying to curry the favor of the then governor, did more than cover a few lunches.  He flew McDonnell to political events on his private jet, bought McDonnell's wife expensive dresses, gave McDonnell's kids high-end gifts, and offered McDonnell a personal loan with no terms attached.  Williams was a sugar-daddy par excellence, giving the McDonnell's $177,000.  The notion that lobbying is somehow integral to the "proper functioning of state and local governments" is also mind-boggling.  Unless, of course, you accept the notion that your constituency isn't the people living in your district, but the people who fill your campaign coffers.


The bizarre logic notwithstanding, the most dispiriting aspect of the amicus brief is its bi-partisan nature.  People in both parties have bought into the notion that government is for and by the people who can pay for it.      

Blowing Smoke, DC edition

Marijuana use is now legal in the District of Columbia. 

A lot of people see this a a big win for pro-pot/medical marijuana/hemp crowd, and it surely is. 

But, it is probably a bigger deal for DC autonomy. 

Although Home Rule (established in 1973) gives the city the right to govern itself, that right is circumscribed.  Congress can prevent any legislation passed by the city government from taking effect. 

In 1998, the year I moved to the DMV, Congress wouldn't even allow the city to report the outcome of ballot Initiative 59, which would have allowed for the legalization of medical marijuana.  The bill's congressional opponents said they would never allow the initiative to take effect, and as such, wouldn't bother counting the votes.   

Those votes were eventually counted, and the initiative passed handily (69% in favor).  It didn't matter, though.  Congress had the final say. 

Congress tried the same heavy handed approach to the city's most recent marijuana initiative.  It told the city it could not spend any money to enforce the law, and when it was clear the District was moving forward with a legalization plan, the chair of the Congressional Subcommittee in charge of DC threatened to put Mayor Muriel Bowser in jail. 

Well, Bowser is still a free woman, the sky has not fallen (to quote Bowser), and it looks like the city's congressional opponents were blowing smoke.

It won't work for everything, but Bowser's decision to ignore Congress and heed the will of DC voters in the process, is a good sign for DC's autonomy.  

Super-bad: Bank Behavior in Black Majority Counties.

This week the Washington Post did a 3 part series on the effects of the 2008 mortgage crisis in Prince Georges County, a black majority county.  If you haven't read the story (part 1, part 2, and part 3), it is well worth a read.  For now I'll summarize two main points from it:  the mortgage crisis hurt black communities worse than white ones, and housing prices in predominantly black communities have not rebounded in the way they have in predominantly white communities.

There's a lot to chew on in these three installments.  For today, though, I want to focus on one thing.  The extra pernicious behavior of banks in black majority counties during the bubble.  Of course, anyone who followed the bubble and the 2008 recession that followed knows the banks were engaged in go-go lending.  But, the bad behavior was especially bad in black majority areas.  And, despite the wealth of knowledge about how badly banks actually behaved in all neighborhoods, a significant number of commentators still continue to blame borrowers.

Unfortunately, the 'blame the borrower' view assumes that lender and borrower have equal knowledge.  That is, while the banker has your personal asset and income statements, you the borrower know enough about mortgages to know whether you're getting a fair deal.

The story in PG county, and the upper middle class neighborhood of Fairwood, illustrates just how uneven that relationships can often be, and how unfair the banks could behave.

In the third installment of the WAPO series we meet the Boatengs, a couple originally from Ghana.  They owned a townhouse in Germantown but with a growing family they decided in 2005 to find a bigger house.  A friend in their church recommended they check out the Fairwood neighborhood--a upper middle class enclave with beautiful new homes.

The Boatengs fell in love with a house in the neighborhood.  It had a price tag of just over $600,000.  Their joint income at the time was just over $110,000.  By any credible standard, the Boatengs should not have qualified for a mortgage for the house.

But, Lehman Brothers, who gave them the mortgage found a way to make it work.  They had the Boatengs cash out the equity in their town home for use as a down payment.  They used savings to increase the amount, allowing them to take out a mortgage for just under $500,000.  Even with a 100,000 reduction, the loan amount was not sustainable.  By my optimistic, back of the envelope calculations, the Boatengs would have brought home about $7,300 a month (assuming a tax rate of 20%).  Their mortgage payments (according to the story) were $3,662 (more on this in a bit).  That means the Boatengs were paying 50% of their take home pay on housing.  Housing experts argue that families should pay no more than 30% of take home pay on housing costs.  For the loan to work the Boatengs would also need a lot of things to fall into place (and stay in place).  They'd need to find a reliable renter for the Germantown townhouse, for example, and they'd need to keep their jobs.    

So far we have an example of the garden variety bad behavior banks were engaged in during the bubble years.  That is, a bank gave out a loan to someone who'd likely have trouble repaying it.     

But, Lehman Brothers decided to pile on.  The Boatengs were immigrants.  They weren't familiar with US banking.  They believed in the American dream, and like many immigrants the idea that the American dream can turn into a nightmare never occurred to them.  The loan the Boatengs got was an adjustable rate, interest only loan.  For the first 5 years the couple would only pay interest (no equity building here).  After 5 years, they would start paying down some principle, but their interest rate would also go up, from 6.1% to 8.3%.  Not surprisingly, the Boatengs couldn't make the new payments.  They've since gone deeper in to debt to improve their ability to repay their mortgage.  They are in over the heads on multiple front.  Foreclosure looms.  

What happened to the Boatengs is called exploitation plain and simple.  And, it was targeted.  West Africans are about 5% of the population of PG county, but they held almost a third of the mortgages that were foreclosed on in the county. 

Superbad--it ain't just a movie.  It's a bank thing. 

Dodging an Olympian sized bullet

Folks in DMV can breath easy.  Boston was selected as the American city to be put forward to the International Olympic Committee to host the 2024 summer Olympics, besting LA, San Francisco, and DC.

This is good news for many reasons!

1.  Hipsters and athletes don't mix.  Yes, they are both skinny, but only one is emaciated.   

2.  Politicians and athletes don't mix well either.  The doughy unhealthy look is popular in Congress.  Congress is all about that base, no treble.   

3.  Ok, both groups do like to drink.  But one will be off the sauce at game time.  

4.  Metro can't handle 4 inches of snow.  The Olympics would destroy it.

5.  The Olympics does not have a 'hot air bloviating' contest.  The area's pompous asses would have taken their balls and stomped off home when they found that out.    

6.   The Swiss crooksInternational Olympic Committee will get their public assistance checks from someone else's tax base.   

7.  The endless chatter about how much the DC2024 team cares about lining their pocketsDC will stop. 

8.  Dan Snyder won't have yet another way to make money on a losing team. 

9.  Traffic will remain in Dante's first circle of hell instead of descending into the ninth circle, where the millions of people all fleeing hurricanes at the same time live.      

10.  More time to focus on the antics of Kirby DeLauter, Kirby DeLauter, Kirby DeLauter!