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.    

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.   

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.  

'Uber This!' Said the Taxi Driver.

I'm about to kick it old school.  In the process I'll probably freak out a few hipsters.  And, I'm sure to attract the wrath of an economist or two.  But, here goes... 

Consumer welfare shouldn't trump the welfare of those who produce what consumers buy.  The goal should be to find some balance between the two. 

Unfortunately, consumers are today's gods while producers are pesky obstacles to progress.  Let's take a case in point.  The Uber debates.  

For those of you who live outside the DMV or in places without Uber, it is basically an informal taxi service.  Because you have to be an Uber 'member' to catch a ride with an Uber driver, Uber isn't registered as a taxi company.  I put 'member' in scare quotes, however, because all it takes to gain membership is a simple download of the Uber app.  The app let's you request a ride and see the closest drivers near you.    

I've never taken Uber.  It started to get big about the time I had a baby, and since my little one can't ride in a car without a car seat, all taxis (formal or otherwise) are a no-go for me at the moment.  I'm not completely out of the loop though.  A friend used Uber to catch a ride from my house to hers the other night.  I watched her request a ride and peered at the map showing where all the Uber cars in the area were.  We were able to guestimate (with accuracy) how long it would take for one to arrive.

All of which is to say that I get the attraction of Uber.  Uber gives you more options (especially in the suburbs where getting a taxi is harder than in the city), and it is often faster at pick-ups than traditional taxis are.       

It is annoying, however, to see Uber described as "rais[ing] consumer welfare." That's what the IGM Economic Experts Panel recently did.  It is also annoying to hear Uber's legions of fans describe it with the kind of hyperbole usually reserved for tent revivals in the South.  One Uber fan on Business Insider wrote: "Uber has changed my life and as God is my witness I will never take a taxi again." 


Really?  So that's what Scarlett O'Hara was talking about--a ride to Atlanta. 

On the face of it IGM is right.  Uber does improve consumer welfare.  However, it does so at the expense of a lot of other things. 

What are those other things?  Thanks go to the Washington Post's Catherine Rampell for pointing out some of these in her recent op-ed about Uber.  She notes, for example, that despite claims to the contrary, Uber isn't all that green.  Indeed, their goal is to be immediately available to anyone who requests a ride, and that means flooding the streets of big cities with Uber drivers.  The inevitable result is a lot of idling cars.  According to Rampell there's also evidence that people take Uber instead of greener options, like buses and metrorail.

There are other problems with Uber, though, that can't fit into the space of an Op-ed in the Washington Post.  Here's where MOCOMusings comes in.  Let's look at the drivers.  Driving a taxi can be a middle class job, although a difficult one.  You know that feeling you get after a road trip where you've done all the driving?  The cramped legs, twitchy fingers, and achy back.  Taxi drivers often do road trip amounts of driving everyday.  So, they get those feelings everyday.  The regulations can also be a pain--you can't refuse customers (even though many do by simply 'not seeing them), and your car has to pass frequent inspection. 

The job can be worth it, though, because the pay is decent, the regulations and fares are predictable (and only change on an annual basis, if at all), and you've got flexibility (need to pop into the store to get something for your kid, you can do it).  Uber's model will destroy or undermine all of that.  In fact, its business model vis-à-vis its employees is to off-load most of the risks onto its drivers.  Drivers have to buy their car (although it must fit Uber's specifications), pay for the insurance, deal with aggressive/drunk customers, compete with the heaps of new drivers Uber keeps hiring, and accept fare reductions that often happen on a whim.  Oh, and let's not forget the commission the drivers have to pay Uber, a fee also subject to unannounced change.  Don't believe me?  Check out this post on a near strike by Uber drivers based on some of these practices.   
 
The taxi-riding public can demand omnipresent services.  It is their right, I suppose.  But, the Uber-riding public among them might want to stop equating their demands with all that is good and holy.  Uber provides its service in much the same way Nike and other large corporations do--at the expense of their labor.  And, all those economists who tell you Uber is great for the flexibility-demanding American workforce are just deluding themselves.  Uber is an attractive option for many drivers because they can't find a job elsewhere. 

Somewhere in Michigan (I presume), Henry Ford, who believed workers should be paid enough to be consumers, is turning over in his grave. 

Unaccompanied Minors in the DMV

It's official.  Some of the unaccompanied minors coming across the US/Mexican border from Central America are now in the DMV.  As I'll explain below, their arrival isn't surprising.

Although most Hispanics in the US are from Mexico (or have parents from Mexico), in Montgomery County they are much more likely to be from Central America (or have parents from there).  The table below shows 2010 Census data on the Hispanic share of the population, and the percentage of that share by place of origin, for MOCO, Maryland, and the US.

To understand how unaccompanied minors from Central America got here let's break it down into push and pull factors.  Push factors explain why a person leaves a place.  Pull factors explain why they go where they go.

THE PUSH
In Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala--the 3 countries where the overwhelming majority of kids are coming from--gangs are a ubiquitous menace.  Central American gangs aren't like gangs in the US who control relatively small turf in poor neighborhoods.  These gangs are much bigger.  In some places the control entire towns; in others they control multiple neighborhoods as well as major streets and highways.  Sure, if you are a rich person in these countries you can afford to (mostly) cocoon yourself.  You can hire a private security detail, live in a gated community with armed guards, and confine yourself to high end areas that are well policed by private forces.

Everybody else is left at the mercy of gangs.  And, since most of these countries don't have sizable middle classes, 'everybody else' constitutes a majority of the population.

So, what are Central American gangs like?  Well, you can always check out the think tank accounts (see here and here), but let me break it down in simple terms.  Most gang members are young men, many of them teenagers.  All teenagers have poor impulse control.  These teenagers also have high caliber weapons and follow the creed that power is key and dominance is power.

If you are a parent or caregiver this is terrifying because it means that your kids can be roughed up, raped, or beaten unconscious by local gang members simply throwing their weight around.  Even worse, your kids could be forced to join a gang and become one of the monsters themselves.

If you are a kid, this is terrifying AND confusing.  The adults, who are supposed to be in charge, can't protect you because it's the teenagers running the show.

As a parent, my first instinct would be to get my kid out of that mix STAT!  If I was living with them, we'd head out together.  If I was in the US, I'd hire a coyote (a smuggler) to get them to me.    

THE PULL:
Why come to MOCO?  Many unaccompanied minors come to the US to be with their parents, who often work here without papers.  MOCO has a higher than average concentration of Central Americans, so it's not surprising that there are reunions happening here and in other parts of the DMV.   

Since this issue first hit the news, I've heard people ask "why would a parent ever leave their kids behind in the first place?"  There's usually a hint of judgement behind the question, but there's also genuine curiosity.  Well, let's start with the fact that there aren't nearly enough jobs to go around.  And, then, even if you get a job, it is likely to be minimum wage.  Central American minimum wages are abysmal (here they are just crappy).  They are not enough to cover basic food staples.  So, these parents leave for work, but the calculus is more than economic.  If you need money for food for your kids, you're talking about survival.   

I've also heard people ask the flip side of this question--why would you ever let your kid travel through Mexico unattended?  The trip is truly hazardous.  Everyone wants a mordida (a bribe) from migrants, and some want more than that (sexual favors, material belongings, forced labor).  In light of this, people often think--"they must be mad for encouraging their kids do that."  The thing is, the dangers aside, the trip opens up a light at the end of the tunnel.  If you make it, things will get better.  Staying behind is like accepting a tunnel with no end, no light. 

When the kids come here they are, in a sense, coming home.  For them, home is with family members in a safe space.  We are that, at least by comparison.  Yes, deportation looms, and we have our own gangs here too.  But, at least for a short while, they can take a breath.  And, exhale.

I hope we give them the space and sanctuary to do just that for as long as they need to. 

Happy 50th birthday Beltway!

The Beltway had a birthday this weekend!  Its final leg was completed 50 years ago, on August 17th, 1964.  If it were a human, it would be middle aged.  And, though it has its youthful moments (I'm looking at you aggressive drivers), it moves more like a 50 year old than an 18 year old.  

In fact, those drivers who never met a bumper they didn't want to twerk aside, the biggest annoyance driving the beltway is the inability to get anywhere near the speed limit.

Although I avoid the beltway like the plague, I can't escape using it on occasion.  So I worry about how the metro area will deal with the Beltway's senior years (I'm sure AARP has already extended a membership offer).  Two challenges are especially apparent.  

1. It needs serious repair work, especially in Maryland.  Things aren't perfect on the Virginia side, but the road is in better condition there because the state was forced to make substantial improvements when it re-engineered the infamous mixing bowl, where the Beltway meets Interstates 395 and 95.  It also made repairs when it installed the so called Rich-People-Get-To-Drive-Faster-than-You-and-Me-LanesHot Lanes.  Virginia also has less mileage to maintain than Maryland.  Only 22.1 of the Beltway's 63.8 miles (35%) are located in Virginia.  The remaining 41.7 miles (65%) are in Maryland.  Right now, there's no big plan to make the substantial repairs that are needed, so gird yourself for crappier road conditions, and deterioration over time.   

2.  Getting people off the beltway.    Everyone agrees the beltway needs to regain some of its efficiency at moving people around the metro area.  But, new lanes alone won't take care of the problem.  The metro area is growing too fast for that.  At most, new lanes would slow the growth of congestion down.  So, the real goal for transportation planners is to find a way to get people into buses, metro trains, and other forms of public transportation.

Unfortunately, public transportation isn't very good for people who live in the suburbs and want to get to another suburban location.  That's why the beltway is so clogged.  Our public transportation is still based on the hub spoke model where going from suburb to city is easy but going from suburb to suburb is either impossible, or requires a circuitious route through the city.

The Purple Line will help, but it won't be enough.  Only when transportation funding keeps up with the growth will any real relief happen.  And, there doesn't seem to be much political will, or forthcoming dollars, to make that happen.

All you have to do is look at the new plan for redevelopment in White Oak, an area north of the beltway on the eastern edge of Montgomery County.  The area is in desperate need of redevelopment, but the county is going to allow a 'set aside' so development can go ahead without the usual requirement that transportation upgrades occur simultaneously.   

Can I work from home please?

Farms and Fairs in the DMV--a trip to the MOCO County Fair

This weekend my family and I went to the Montgomery County Agricultural Fair.  The fair, held at the county's fairgrounds in Gaithersburg Maryland, is always fun.  Funnel cake, carnival rides, and cute animals looking their best.  It is also a nice reminder that not all of the DMV is urban or even suburban.  There's still a lot of rural in these parts! 

According to the Montgomery County Department of Economic Development's Agricultural Services division there are 561 farms and 350 horticultural enterprises.  And, City-Data.com tells us that 86.14% of those farms are family owned.  

By the way, for you stats nerds, the average farm in Montgomery County is 130 acres and the average farmer is 57 years old.  

Eat local!  and Viva the Fair!

 

Kickin' it old school!

Cuz the ladies like their tractors too!

They made it look easy

Pig nap--neither pig feet or nor crowds with cameras will get in the way of a good snooze!

Apparently pigs do fly

Cow 'tooties 

Winning Flowers

One of these is not like the others

Who 'owns' the football team in Burgundy and Gold?

Who owns the NFL football team that wears burgundy and gold?  The team is officially called the Washington *&^%$.  But, it has its stadium in Maryland and its headquarter and training facility in Virginia.

The answer to my question would seem obvious.  The whole metro area does.  Of course, this being the DMV, a land where everything is subject to politics, it's not so simple.

DC House Delegate Eleanor Norton Holmes calls the team "Washington's football team."  She refuses to use the team's official name on the grounds that it is offensive.  But, she'll still claim it for the city.

A few days ago Washington Post Sport columnist Jonathan Wise disagreed, suggesting the team really belonged to Virginia.  The state's new governor, Terry McAuliffe, feels the same way.  In fact, unlike Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley and DC mayor Vince Gray, McAuliffe isn't wading into the name controversy.  He's happy to claim the team for Virginia with its current name, and while he's at it to take a political contribution from its owner.

My husband, who follows just about every sport known to man, couldn't disagree more.  (Ok, he doesn't follow golf or cricket, but he's got everything else covered, which is why he's the Maryland sports representative for this blog).  When I asked him who owned the team and told him Wise claimed Virginia did, his first response was an incredulous 'huh?'  A man of few words, his comment was akin to a "what you talkin' about Willis?"  Sensing my need for more commentary, he followed up.  "They play in MARYLAND."

Here's my question?  Why, at the moment, would any of these jurisdictions want to claim the team.  And, by claim, I don't mean claim the tax revenue that comes with the franchise.  I mean claim in a broader, cultural sense.  As in, this is part of who I am, and who my people are.  It is part of my tradition and history.

I'm no fan of the NFL (see here and here for why), but I'll accept that you can love a team even when you hate the league it is a part of.  And, unfortunately, the NFL would hardly be the first sports organization corrupted beyond repair (FIFA anyone?).  But, that aside, the burgundy and gold have something else working against them.  The owner, Dan Snyder.  You know, the man who sues weekly magazines (The Washington City Paper) because no one but Dan Snyder can take the piss out of Dan Snyder.  He's also the guy who charges outrageous prices for tickets and then robs you a second time when you buy a hot dog, coke, or beer.  And, let's not forget that pesky habit of micromanaging the front office, coaches, players, and maybe even a cheerleader or two (just kidding about the cheerleaders--please don't sue me Mr. Snyder). This man would give Shakespeare or Shonda Rhimes (Grey's Anatomy, Scandal) a run for the money. 

Hubby's not ready to give the team up, but for me, I'm happy to let outer space claim them.  

Random Moco Pic of the Day--Diversity in the DMV

Technically, these picture aren't in Montgomery County.  I snapped them on University Boulevard just past the MOCO/PG county border.

However, they strike me as emblematic of the DMV, and two things about it in particular:
One, the DMV is incredibly diverse.  Second, that diversity is frequently on display in the suburbs rather than in the city proper.   

In this shopping mall you can get Mexican/Salvadoran food, African goods, Colombian clothes, and tax help in English or Spanish.  Just up the street (not pictured) you can also get a sari made.  Now if only there was an Irish bar and a sushi joint!

Microunits--the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

The Real Estate section in this weekend's Washington Post has an interesting article on so called microunits. 

First off, some definitions.  We're not talking about microwaves here.  Or those microplates at high end restaurants.  No, we're talking about apartments.  Really small ones.  There's no official measurement criterion, but most microunits are between 250 and 400 square feet.  For comparison's sake, the average hotel room is about 325 feet.  And, by average hotel room I don't mean that luxury suite at the Bellagio.  I'm talking about a Red Roof Inn off the interstate.   

Right now microunits are confined to the city, but there's talk of building some in inner suburbs like Crystal City.

What's good about microunits.  The main social benefit in urban areas is that microunits can be used in places where the supply of housing is less than the demand for it.  In New York City, for example, former mayor Michael Bloomberg relaxed the city's minimum floor space required for apartments (400 square feet) to allow developers to build a building full microunits on government land.  Bloomberg's reasoning?  There were 1.2 million 1 and 2 person households in the city and only 1 million apartments for them.  Essentially, you can cram more people into a building if each unit is 'micro.'

The Bad.  Microunits are not a solution to a lack of housing.  They are a quasi surrender.  Why?  Because they are designed to house singles.  And, I'm not talking about marital/significant other status here.  I'm talking literally.  Microunits are designed to house one person per unit.*  For example:  a millennial who is just starting out and hasn't accumulated a lot of junk, an elderly woman who wants to live near her daughter but have her own space, or a wealthy businessperson who has a larger house in the 'burbs but wants an 'in-city' crash pad.  There's nothing wrong with building housing for single people.  But, you shouldn't build a housing policy around niche markets.  You need to be able to provide for the full spectrum of households--singles, couples without kids, couples with kids, people who live in multi-generational families.  If you only build housing for the niche market described above you also risk turning cities into places that lack diversity of social structure.  Do we really want our cities to look like college campuses where only students and their Head Residents live?  College campuses are scary places a night.  Mixing liquor and Foucault is never advisable. 

The Ugly.  The ugly has to do with how developers and city officials legitimate microunits.  In the Washington Post article that prompted this post developers cited cost--theirs and their prospective renters--as the reason to build microunits.  Surprise surprise, it is expensive to build in the city, so your neighborhood developerMontgomery Burns needs a way to insure he still get sizable returns, and by sizable I mean 'daddy needs a new yacht, STAT!'  But never fear, those kindhearted souls aren't trying to rip you poor renters off.  No, they are offering bargain basement prices for their closetsapartments.  The renter profiled in the Washington Post article was paying the paltry sum of $2,500 a month.  That's right, you'll pay more for a micro unit than the average one-bedroom apartment in the city, but never fear, you'll get a sticker that says "I'm micro!"

* Yes, couples and even couples with a kid can live in micro units.  But, most people want a little more space and privacy once they have a kid, or grandma moves in. 

Are We Asking the Wrong Question about Where Gentrification Happens?

For the most part, when we discuss gentrification we talk about neighborhoods.  Neighborhood X got a yoga studio, or Neighborhood Y got a new Whole Foods.  If multiple neighborhoods gentrify at the same time, we might also talk about its affects on the city as a whole.  But, the city line is usually the spatial perimeter that bounds our discussion. 

But, what if we are asking the wrong question?  What if gentrification is actually a process that affects the nation as a whole, creating gentrifying cities and disinvested cities instead of  gentrifying neighborhoods and disinvested ones?  

At this point, you might be thinking--"What you talkin' about Willis?"  

Well, according to a new study by Rebecca Diamond highlighted on the Washington Post's wonkblog, that is what is happening.  The dual affects we often associate with gentrification--investment in some areas and disinvestment in others--are are national in scope.  To use a locally inspired metaphor, some cities are like Logan Circle while others are like Langley Park. 

Instead of income, however, Diamond uses education to measure gentrification on the national scale, with the key metric being college degrees.

Turns out,  people with college degrees tend to flock to places where there are lots of other college grads.  Over time, you get a sort of path dependency.  A city manages to attract college grads, which in turn attracts more college grads.  This trend also puts upward pressure on salaries, which in turn drive an increase in restaurants, museums, and other cultural fare. Streets get safer too. San Francisco, Boston, Philadelphia, and Washington DC are good examples of this trend.  In the early 1990s, for example, DC recorded over 400 murders.  Last year, it recorded 103, even though the city is much larger today. 

On the flip side, places that don't attract college grads see their relative, and in some cases real status decline.  Their wages are lower and they have fewer amenities.  Crime takes a turn for the worse.  Toledo, Detroit, and Baton Rouge are good examples.


I think Diamond's work is fascinating (if ultimately depressing).  It means Americans are becoming even more segregated (in this case along class lines).   

But, none of this means local-scale gentrification will go away anytime soon.  It is easy to look at 14th Street in DC and see the DMV as a booming metropolis full of good jobs, good eats, plentiful entertainment, and safe streets.  But, someone still has to work in the low wage jobs that clean the office buildings where those good jobs are located, bus the tables at the fancy see-and-be-seen restaurants, wash the beer glasses recycled many times over in hipster bars, and police the drunks that come out of them at night.  Low wage workers aren't teleported in for the job.  They live in the DMV too, and the growing gap between their salaries and those of the folks noshing at Le Diplomate continue to leave its mark.

If you want to see how this plays out in your own world, ask the person who cleans your office building where she lives the next time you get the chance.  Chances are she lives in a suburban, and quite likely exurban location.  By the way, when I asked this question at my workplace, the answer was Gaithersburg.          

Change Comes to Downtown Bethesda's Northern Tip

I went for a birthday dinner on the northern edge of downtown Bethesda this weekend.  It looks like change is coming to the more chilled out part of Bethesda proper.

Here are some pics from the corner of Woodmont Avenue and Battery Lane.  A new mixed use complex is coming to what is now a giant pit in the ground framed by some big arse, impressive cranes!   Right now, the bottom floor will be occupied by upscale grocer Harris Teeter with upper floors set aside for rental housingoverpriced apartments for millennials.   

For those not familiar with Bethesda, here's a map, and a wee bit of explanation.  The entertainment district in Bethesda is centered around Bethesda Row (which sits on Woodmont Avenue between Elm St. and Bethesda Ave.).  There's a movie theatre, a Barnes and Noble and several local and national Chains in the area. 

However, if you head north on Woodmont the chain restaurants slowly give way to more unique fare.  It is still a high end area--no doubt about it--but it feels more organic and less contrived than Bethesda Row.  Perhaps the fact that the existing apartments in the area to the northwest are older, low to mid-rise, and sometimes subsidized helps.

But, if the mixed use center set to open up at Woodmont and Battery Lane is any indication, that might change.  Higher density tends to bring more options for eating, drinking, and shopping, but it also tends to bring on the high priced generic.  And, the income level of new arrivals isn't likely to counter that trend.  If there's one thing the DMV's developers won't build these days it is affordable (or even middle class) housing.  It is a luxury or bust market.    

I'll keep taking pics so readers can follow the progress. 

Fighting for Millennials--City/Suburb edition

City and Suburb have history.  There are slights, fights, outright insults, and more than a fair share of cold shoulders.  So, it probably shouldn't surprise us that they'd fight over millennials as well.

Until recently, however, everyone thought the city had won that battle (many times over).  We're constantly bombarded with stories about millennials' preference for urban hotspots.   

Well, it turns out (according to a recent Washington Post article) that a lot of millennials can't actually afford to live in the city, or can only afford to do so if they shack up dorm style in 1 and 2-bedroom apartments.  And, let's not even discuss group housesmillennial warehouses. Turns out millennials at the upper end of the age bracket are also having trouble 'upsizing' inside the city when they get in a family way.  Two bedroom apartments are in short supply and even more ridiculously expensive than the city's already ridiculously expensive 1-bedrooms.   

What does all of this mean?  Well, we know that millennials are moving into the city at higher rates than any other age group.  But, it turns out they are also the largest age group moving out. 

Who could have seen this coming?  Everyone, it seems, but the stewards of Mayor Gray's 'One City,' who've been busy celebrating the luxurification of the District of Colombia.  It was, after all, Gray's former Director of Planning, Harriett Tregoning who called 14th Street's transformationinto the Champs Elysees"fascinating, anomalous and wonderful for the city!"

But, never fear millennials, neighboring Prince George's County has your back!  After the Washington Post published its article, Eric Olson, a county council member in Prince George's County came a' courtin'!  Turns out PG County has bike trails, some walkable neighborhoods, access to public transportation, and most of all affordable rent. 

I don't have a dog in this fight (I live in MOCO), but I'd hate to see the battle for millennials reduced to a battle over which is better--city or suburb.  The real problem is that the DMV is an expensive place to live, and the closer you get to downtown DC, the more expensive it becomes (with some notable exceptions).  There's also a dearth of affordable housing in the city, and many of its close-in suburbs.  Until that problem gets addressed, the real segregation lines will continue to be economic (and social), not generational. 

The Mighty Potomac

After 5 days of rain, the Potomac is running high and mucky.  But, it is still gorgeous.  These pics are were taken from Hains Point, looking east towards the southwest water front. 

Who is the 'New' DC for Anyway?

Who does DC belong to and who is it being remade for?

When I moved to DC in 1998 no one asked these sorts of questions. The city wasn't in good enough shape for there to be any real scrambling for pie pieces.  In 1995, 3 years before I arrived, the city hit rock bottom when then Mayor Marion Barry approached Congress for help covering city expenses.  Instead of a bailout Congress ordered an austerity plan.  The Financial Control Board took over the city's budget, and not surprisingly, lots of slashing and burning ensued.*  

These questions matter now, though, because the work that began in 1995 to remake the city has borne fruit.  Lots and lots of people want to live in DC.  As a result, rents are high, vacancy rates are low, and houses on the market don't sit for a spell.

Suddenly, a lot more people want pieces of the pie than there are pie pieces to be had. 

There's been a lot of coverage of what this means for the city's African American population, who used to comprise a majority of city residents.  Many mourn "chocolate city"--the affectionate nickname the Parliaments gave the city in the 70s--and resent the appropriation of black culture to sell cocktails and even entire neighborhoods.  

Here, I want to discuss what this means for the city's class makeup.  And, as usual, it was a Washington Post article that prompted my thoughts. The article, which showed up this weekend, describes the attempt to turn City Center, a new development in Penn Quarter, into a luxury shopping area equivalent to Rodeo Drive in Los Angeles. Can TMZ be far behind? 

So, who exactly are developers hoping to woo to Penn Quarter?   

Sorry bureaucratic cubicle dwellers, it's not you.
My apologies underpaid denizens of NGO land.  This is way above your pay grade.
Professors?  You can't be serious--did Chomsky teach you nothing?   
Excuse me Mr. Firemen, but you know the drill.  We let you work 72 hour shifts because you already live in West Virginia.   
I hate to pile on, dear DCPS teachers--first Michelle Rhee, then Common Core--but you're out too. 
DC United fans--snap out of it!  This relationships has been going no where for years.

No, in Penn Quarter, at least, here's who the new DC is for (per the Post):   

"A lawyer leaves a deposition and pops into Tumi for new carry-on luggage ($680). A tourist ducks out of the rain and treats herself to a classic trench coat from Burberry ($1,695). Two conventioneers skip the plenary session for a couple hours of power shopping: a flirty dress at Kate Spade ($448), a cashmere sweater from Zadig & Voltaire ($535), maybe a leather Le Pliage tote from Longchamp ($555)."   

I know.  I can't believe they left the lobbyists out.  Life is so unfair. 
Just don't come north.  Please.  


* None of this means, of course, that people living in DC didn't love it, or at least love it when they weren't busy hating it (as a southerner by birth I know a little about love/hate relationships with home).  It's just that a lot of outsiders weren't clamoring to join them. 

DC's new transportation plan: Green elitism?

Yesterday's Washington Post had an interesting article about the DC Department of Transportation's long range transportation plan.  Unfortunately, like a lot of green initiatives, it is fairly elitist.   

First, let's start with what the plan proposes.  There are new features like water taxis and streetcars as well as improvements to the existing metro and bus system.  Bikers will also get a boost with more paved road reserved for bikes lanes.  There's even a plan to charge commuters a toll to drive into the city. The goal is to make DC greener by forcinggetting people out of their cars.

So, why is this plan elitist?  Three interconnected reasons.  The first is that the plan doesn't take into account the changing distribution of the region's working class and poor populations.  DC's Poor and working class population used to live (primarily) in inner city areas.  They often faced disinvestment and high crime, but there was one benefit to their location--proximity to public transportation.  As DC has gentrified, many of these people have been pushed into the suburbs, or even exurbs.

Second, public transportation becomes less available and efficient the further you move from the city.  There are fewer bus lines and wait times between buses can be more than half an hour.  Likewise, metro stations tend to be located further apart in the suburbs, and the hub and spoke nature of DC's system means that it is often difficult to move from one suburb to another without routing through the city first.  These difficulties are compounded for poor and working class people who also have to find a way to get to their nearest metro stop.  Most can't afford to live within walking distance of a station because rents/home prices tend to be higher near them.  This means that car dependency is not just a choice (as it is often presented) but an unavoidable fact of life for many people at the bottom half of the income spectrum.

Third, if you charge people to drive into DC, you are essentially instituting a regressive tax.  That is, the people who cannot afford to live in the city or near a suburban metro stop will be the ones who have to pay it.  Some will pay it because they have no choice.  But, others, especially those at the bottom of the scale may simply avoid the city altogether--not because they want to but because they can't afford the cost or time it would take to enter it via public transit.     

There's nothing wrong with making it easier to move around DC without a car, but unless and until public transportation in the entire DMV is improved, the city should stick with carrots and leave the sticks behind.  Otherwise, DC's green will come with a side of exclusion. 

Random MOCO Pic of the Day--a Jaunt to H Street NE

We went to H Street NE for dinner on Saturday night with some friends.  In a lot of ways it feels like a flatter Adams Morgan--lots of bars without the hill to climb.  But, unlike Adams Morgan H Street has an old school art deco theater that's been revamped--the gorgeous Atlas Theater.  I snapped this picture on Saturday night.  

For newbies to the region, H Street was the site of intense rioting after the assassination of Martin Luther King Junior in 1968.  Things got so bad in DC that Lyndon B. Johnson sent the National Guard into the streets.  The Atlas managed to survive the chaos, but as the picture* below of a guardsman holding an M19 rifle at the corner of H and 7th Streets demonstrates, there was plenty of destruction to go around.

 Although the suburban exodus from DC began soon after the end of World War II, the riots hastened the decline in neighborhoods like H Street and U Street (also the site of intense rioting).  H Street was never without its charms, however.  The picture** below was taken in 2010 before gentrification hit the area like a ton of bricks.

* Photographer Unknown.  Warren K. Leffler / Library of Congress, LC-DIG-ppmsca-04301
** Carol M. Highsmith.  Warren K. Leffler/ Library of Congress, LC-DIG-highsm-09816

Can Golf be Gentrified?

I swear, this isn't a joke.  I am asking a serious question here.  And, my answer is yes, golf can be gentrified.  I came to this topic after reading a front page article in the Washington Post metro section today about the fate of the 3 public* golf courses in DC.   

Let me state for the record that I do not play golf.  And, before I moved to DC I always thought golf was a game that only rich people in country clubs played.  However, my swim team practices at a public pool adjacent to one of the golf courses (Hains Point), and since golfers and swimmers both nosh on Cheetos and drink beer at the concession standclubhouse,** I've had a chance to observe the people who golf there.  

FYI:  Hains Point is a man-made island in the Potomac.  The picture*** of the island below is from 1935.  Except for the pool (built years later), and more trees, things look much the same today.  

The golf course at Hain's Point isn't quite as proletariat as the Washington Post article suggests.  Greens fees for all three courses--$31 for 18 holes on the weekend--are still too high for anyone on a tight budget, but they are substantially lower than fees charged at other locations in the DMV.  And, you don't have to join a club and pay membership dues to play there.   

For much of their history, Hains Point and the other two public courses have functioned as defacto country clubs for the city's black elite and middle class.  Indeed, the city's history of segregation (both formal and informal) meant higher end clubs were either off limits or unwelcoming. 

The city has changed a lot in the last few decades, though, so today you'll find all races, ethnicities, and genders at Hains Point.  The vibe is laid back and inclusive.  Cheap beer tends to do that. 

So, how will Hains Point be gentrified?  Well, it turns out DC House Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, usually a defender of the 'little guy,' wants to turn one of these 3 golf courses into a mini-Augusta National.  And, since Hains Point is on the water and has fabulous views, she has set her sights on it. 

In April Norton introduced a bill that would prompt the Department of the Interior, which owns all three courses, to negotiate a public/private partnership to turn one of the courses into "a world-class golf course".  The improvements at the course slated for major overhaul could then charge market rate greens fees, which would in turn finance smaller scale improvements at the remaining courses. 

Why, you  may ask, does DC need a world class golf course?  Norton told Mike DeBonis at the Washington Post, “You’ve got a bloc of lobbyists and other rich corporate types who come from across the country to this city every year. I think we would build a golf course and a clubhouse fit for those people used to world-class golf courses. I think it would pay for the others.”

Norton may see her move as 'sticking it' to the rich guy, taking their money to improve public infrastructure, but all I see is gentrification.  All three courses are owned by the feds, so fixes shouldn't involve city residents getting economically excluded from even one of them.    

But, I'm sure those poor saps who come to Washington to lobby Congress will LOVE her plan.  The poor dears already make so many sacrifices, like commuting to Virginia or Maryland to play golf.  And, imagine having to make a meal out of a hamburger and chips.  Oh the inhumanity. 

How about this Eleanor Holmes Norton--just write a bill that appropriates some funds to improve the courses.  DC's got enough gentrification.  Do you really have to gentrify golf too?  

Notes: 

* The National Park Service (part of the Dept. of the Interior) is in charge of all three courses

** Don't worry--we swimmers only drink beer after practice

*** The picture is from the Library of Congress, digital ID cph.3c35450.  

The Millennial Fetish

As every new generation comes of age, the media loves to fixate on them.  What makes them tick, we wonder?  How are they different from all the others that came before them?  I get it, I really do.  But, some of the recent coverage of millennials, especially in the DMV, veers toward the ridiculous, or sublimely funny, depending on your mood. 

Case in point?  An article in the Washington Post Real Estate section this past Saturday (4/19/14) about the efforts of developers and architects to build for millennials, or as the article puts it,  "to create living spaces with this generation’s behaviors in mind."

So, what sorts of behaviors do millennials exhibit that the rest of us don't, and more importantly, how does this translate into different living spaces?


The WAPO article identifies three main differences.

1.  Millennials aren't buying homes just yet.  They've got too much debt, so they either can't afford a mortgage, or they don't have enough savings to cover a down payment.  So, how does this translate into how we build/design spaces for them?

Wait for it...really, you're going to be floored by this one...seriously, sit down...take a deep breath...THEY RENT APARTMENTS. 

2. Millennial like customizable spaces.  As the WAPO article notes:  "Millennials have the same expectations about physical spaces and digital spaces; they want to be able to socialize within personalized spaces that they can break down and rebuild in different ways."

I'm not sure what a digital space is.  But, this is to be expected.  I'm a Gen-Xer.  Translation:  I'm a slacker working on a refurbished IBM 486.

Anyway, I digress.  How does this love of customization translate into millennial spaces?  According to the WAPO article, millennials want "retail-style walk-in closets that can be arranged multiple ways, in-unit areas to hang bicycles and kayaks, and sliding doors within apartment units that can enable more opened or closed environments."  Seriously?  That's what makes them different--big closets?  The article's writer clearly hasn't seen the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills.  Those ladies have closets the size of Alaska, and are, ahem, older than your average millennial. 

3.  Millennials like upgrades.  I'm not sure exactly what the article's author means by an upgrade, but it seems to boil down to technology. 

So, how do millennials' preferences for the most updated technology translate into new and creative spaces?  Apparently it is about things like new and inventive lighting.  As WAPO puts it, "glowing floors, lit walls, light boxes...flat-screen technology."

I'm starting to think a millennial wrote this article.   

John Travolta's best dance moves in Saturday Night Fever were on a glowing floor.  All those hip thrusts would've been just another Elvis rip-off without that floor!

And, don't even get me started on the Lava Lamp, that beacon of alternative lighting from across the ages.    

So, the next time you meet a millennial, behold the exotic creature before you.  She rents an apartment, has big closets, and likes funky lights.  Dorothy, you're not in Kansas anymore.  

P.S. the movie poster is from Wikipedia and falls within the fair use category. 

Watch Out Francis Underwood. MOCO ain't afraid to throw you off the platform!

Oh, that poor Francis Underwood.  First, his mistress turned on him, then his chief of staff got bonked on the head by a former prostitute.  And, let's not even mention that little unpleasantness in the parking garage during the first season.

Francis' latest nemesis?  The Maryland House of Delegates.  They just gave him a new pair of Francis Underwood cufflinks.

At this point you non-DMV readers (I suspect I can count you all on one hand, but I love you all!) are probably wondering where I'm going with this.  It turns out that House of Cards isn't actually filmed in DC.  It is filmed in Maryland, mostly in Baltimore, Harford County, and Annapolis. 

And, those poor sods who produce House of Cards tell us they'll have to get in a bread line leave if they don't get another round of tax credits.  That's right, the guys who brought you Francis Underwood are playing hardball.  They are threatening to move production out of Maryland and find some pretty row houses elsewhere if the requested tax credits aren't forthcoming.  Keven Spacey even came to Annapolis to make the case. 

According to the Washington Post Maryland is allowed by law to allocate 7.5 million to movie/TV production in the state.  Last year a special dispensation was passed that allowed greater amounts of tax credits.  With the one time additional allocation, House of Cards got 11 million in tax credits in its first season and 15 million in its second season.  It is now asking for more credits in its 3rd season, although the Post reports the production company hasn't stipulated how much it will need. 

Which brings us to Delegate C. William Frick (D-Montgomery County).  No, he didn't off anybody.  But he did swat the ball back in the House of Card's court with a loud thwack.  Specifically, he introduced an amendment (read it here) to an unrelated bill  that basically gives the state the right to use eminent domain to seize production equipment of film companies who leave the state after having received the tax credit.  And, it passed easily. 

So, which Francis Underwood should we support?  I'm going with Frick.  I doubt he'll off his opponents, for starters.  I also expect he's thinking about the state's interests more than the House of Cards Production team is.  In fact, I haven't seen anything yet to convince me that House of Cards is losing money.  At some point, corporations, even those in Hollywood who can usually get away with this stuff because everyone assumes they are progressive, need to suck it upbehave more responsibly. Contributing to the Maryland economy while also making a profit should be enough.  The Maryland folks who work on your crews are just as important as your investors.  Do you really need another yacht? 

Corporate welfare is unattractive, even if Kevin Spacey is the one whipping the votes in support of it.