When some desperate PhD candidate someday submits a definitive cultural history of town-gown relations, here’s hoping the dissertation includes the story of the Great Burleith Private Garbage Truck Battle of 2011.
The controversy’s most recent iteration entered the public record late one night in the beige and taupe room at One Judiciary Square where D.C.’s Zoning Commission meets. Ron Lewis, an Advisory Neighborhood Commission 2E commissioner, was facing off against Todd Olson, Georgetown University’s vice president of student affairs and dean of students.
In years past, residents of the affluent neighborhoods abutting the school had complained about the trash generated by students who rent houses there. So, last year, the school hired its own garbage trucks to supplement public trash collection. The city’s trucks come once or twice a week. The school’s come every day. Twice.
But if you think this sort of thing—a major research university prostrating itself before neighbors who resent a population of perfectly legal renters—would tamp down the animus, then you don’t understand the bizarre universe of D.C. campus politics. In this world, a university paying for private garbage service isn’t evidence of goodwill at all.
The bespectacled, tweedy Lewis began a cross-examination. “When the trash isn’t being picked up by your truck, it’s visible obviously, correct?,” he asked Olson.
“In some locations at some times,” Olson replied.
“And like most trash, it probably doesn’t smell so good, right?” Lewis shot back, springing the trap.
There you have it: The school’s effort to clean up stinky student garbage was clear and damning evidence of that garbage’s all-pervasive stink. Extra trash collection only means there’s extra trash.
For neighbors who’ve spent years battling refuse, rats, rowdiness, and other unpleasantness they blame on the presence of students, even a piece of institutional kowtowing—most locals would love twice-a-day garbage service!—comes across as a sign of disrespect.
It’d be easy to mock the sturdy Burleithers for seeing dark clouds in every silver lining. But the Great Burleith Private Garbage Truck Battle of 2011 is hardly the only case of collegiate neighbors making upscale Washingtonians act like sophomores who see a conspiracy behind the dean’s every decision.
In Wesley Heights last year, a neighborhood group demanded that American University prohibit students from hanging decorations in windows of a proposed new dormitory, lest they offend local aesthetic sensibilities. Residents near Georgetown University have pressured the school to institute shuttle bus service between the campus and M Street NW, should noisy students disturb residents while walking back to their dorms. The bus, having been duly established, is now derided by neighbors as the “drunk bus.”
And then there’s parking. In the neighborhood around George Washington University’s Mount Vernon campus, as well as in American University Park, locals have pressured the schools to forbid students from parking in otherwise legal street spaces. Campus cops have gone so far as to write tickets on legally parked cars that simply look like they might belong to students—because, for instance, books are visible through the windows. Now neighbors are complaining about accidentally receiving such tickets.
What’s going on here?
To some extent, it’s just a local version of the tensions that happen everywhere from Palo Alto, Calif., to Princeton, N.J., and anywhere else that comparatively comfortable neighbors live next to comparatively entitled students. All the same, the specific nature of town-gown tension here also reveals a great deal about the District’s essence. It’s a place where the bureaucratic rules for campuses—much of the recent upheaval is tied to the schools’ decennial efforts to gain required approval for mandatory 10-year campus plans—encourage an adversarial system replete with exaggerated gripes and over-the-top demands. It’s a place where well-off locals, lacking an infrastructure to participate in national politics, have a long history of using back channel access to get their way.
And Washington is also a place that has never, unlike some other big cities, been quite comfortable with becoming a bustling, urban center. Ours is a town where there’s no agreed-upon answer to the basic question of whether we really want to allow a bunch of quiet-seeking residents to stifle a university’s growth.
The story of how we organize building on D.C.’s campuses works a bit like a seminar on how D.C. organizes itself.





Our Readers Say
Ms. Hilton did a good job documenting the insanity of their demands, but she was too soft on SNAP and petty tyrant Corey Peterson. SNAP has been known to "bust up" a group of five people sitting quietly on a porch at 10 p.m. on a Saturday night. If you think they don't have any actual authority to do that, you're right!
Also wish Hilton would have addressed the fundamental flaw in the neighbors' argument: the university has been in Georgetown since 1789. Hardly a surprise that there are university students in the neighborhood.
Anyway, everyone has to find a way to get along. Students are there to stay. Neighbors could put up fences, landscape with more hardy plants, add motion type floodlights and become mentors to students. Students need to get to know the neighbors, offering gardening and other help,and inviting neighbors to special college programs. If you can't beat them, join them.
DC is my favorite city, and I would move there in a minute if I could afford it. Both neighbors and students are very fortunate to have access to all that this wonderful city offers.
Were the neighbors unaware that the university was there when they moved in? I'm not saying that it excuses excessive rowdy behavior on the part of the university students, but when you choose a neighborhood, you must take these things into account. There's a difference between reasonable expectations (providing a bus) and unreasonable expectations (not allowing students to park in legal spaces).
I think the answer to that question is pretty obvious: in the case of the neighborhood NIMBY brigades, it is quite plainly the latter. These folks are affluent enough that they don't need libraries - they can buy any book they want - and they can drive to whatever ball field or lecture or hospital they want. They want to have easy access to those things, and they do. But they don't want to live next to them. It's about having your cake and eating it too: the benefits without the externalities.
In any case, excellent article, Shani.
These residents did not buy a house in the suburbs and one day woke and someone sticked a college near them, with all the restaurants, bookstores and retail that goes with. They were attracted to the neighborhood for the restaurants that came for the college or even the college themselves. So how can they complain?
"But puzzle me this: a for profit hospital sits on one side of a block. A nonprofit hospital or university sits on the other side. They both receive tax-payer funded services like fire and police protection, local roads, metro, etc. I cannot distinguish between the services they provide to the community. But one pays fees/taxes. The other doesn't. Why and to what effect?"
One's ultimate purpose is to generate profit for its owners/shareholders, while the other's ultimate purpose is to generate benefits to society. That's the logical reason behind treating for-profit and not-for-profit entities differently, anyway. You're welcome to disagree with that dichotomy, but it has a pretty well-established foundation here. I don't think that a charity dedicated to fighting cancer or poverty or child abuse brings any greater benefit to an area by having their offices located there than a law firm does. Maybe less, even, since the lawyers have more money to spend around. But we tax the former and not the latter, and I can see why.
To your specific example, though: Universities all have their own police departments and often their own EMS services as well (GERMS at GU and EMeRG at GWU), which serve the neighborhoods surrounding campus as well. In addition, while non-profits don't pay property taxes, they do pay payroll taxes and their employees pay DC income tax (assuming they live in DC, obviously), so all those services are being paid for through that. Universities also often pay for road upkeep in and around their campuses and some transportation as well. Anyone can take the GUTS buses to and from Georgetown's campus, for instance.
When it comes to hospitals at least, the non-profit distinction is window-dressing. It's not as if for-profit hospitals turn away the sick at their ERs, and the worst practices in the health care industry are just as prevalent among non-profit hospitals (which make up about 80% of all hospitals in the country): discriminatory pricing against the uninsured, siccing collections agencies on debtor patients, consolidating into multi-hospital systems and shutting down money-losing hospitals in poor neighborhoods, etc. Only effective difference is because a non-profit was once founded by a religious order a hundred years ago, they don't pay taxes.
DROP THE FANTASY YOU LIVE IN A CITY!
Take your millions and move your ass to Leesburg and get a pony already.
Re: students doing charity work, Ms. Hilton neglected to mention that among the letters opposing Georgetown campus plan were many letters from non-profit groups and schools in support of the plan because of the work Georgetown students do in their communities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Martyrs
If you choose to remain in Georgetown, remember that you bought/rent your home - not the entire neighborhood, and that the needs of everyone who live there matter, not just your particular wants.
@ Minna Since the native americans were robbed both of their cultural heritage and lands in part through the aid of the Jesuit order, and by your reasoning,the people here first should have their rights protected above all others. Are the Jesuits and GU willing to compensate native americans for the injustices done to them? Inquiring minds wish to know.
This is a really preposterous statement. Who lives in the West End and expects suburbia? It's completely nonsensical and missing the point. They may be concerned with quality of life issues (reasonable or not) like noise, traffic, parking, but that doesn't suggest any desire for a more idyllic suburban model within the city.
Ultimately the universities and their students are invested in their schools above the neighborhood. Property owners are inherently invested in the neighborhood. Their interests are often not aligned, but I wouldn't underestimate how much the universities depend on certain neighborhoods to attract prospective students -- namely safe surrounding communities in a city perceived by many parents unfamiliar with DC as unsafe.
You think the DC City Council is beholden to "large nonprofit interests" ?! That's certainly a new one. Certainly in the case of universities - and Georgetown, GWU, and Howard represent some of the largest hospitals in the city, although Sibley is now owned by Johns Hopkins (I think) as well - the amount of money they spend on lobbying is minuscule compared to various corporate and commercial entities. The "Payment in Lieu of Taxes" schemes involving universities you're talking about only exist in a few places and almost entirely in instances where the non-profit is either extremely wealthy (Harvard) or paying a relatively small amount (Tufts pays the City of Somerville $125,000 per year).
If non-profits really had that much power, we wouldn't be seeing universities get clubbed over the head as they are with the campus plan process as they are.
With respect to the larger issues of how hospitals operate, which you and Mike raised, I have no interest in defending the business practices of any or all hospitals. The existing system is clearly broken in a number of ways. Suffice it to say that the rising costs of healthcase are a national problem that makes budget-balancing difficult for all entities, non-profit and for-profit alike. A real solution can only come on the federal level. I don't think that adding another major expense to hospitals' operating costs is going to do anything to help control health care costs, though.
Also, Tom M - in the case of Georgetown and this area specifically, the role of the long-oppressed English Jesuits and Catholics in committing offenses against Native Americans was quite small, especially when compared to the Puritans and Anglicans. Indeed, when the first two Jesuits arrived along with Catholic settlers on the Ark and the Dove, the land they settled on was purchased from the native Yaocomico tribe, rather than taken by force. There's no need to conflate the atrocities committed by the Spanish with what took place in this area. If we're to engage in the process of distributing historical blame - which is really beside the point - it would be the WASP forefathers of the bulk of current Georgetown neighborhood residents on whom the lion's share would fall.
Extra historical tidbit - the Jesuit order did not officially exist at the time of Georgetown's founding, having been suppressed by Pope Clement XIV in 1773.
The university's unspoken but obvious stance that it should be allowed to take over and share the quiet residential areas surrounding its campus is nothing short of confiscatory. Everyone respects the advantages of a nearby fine university and no one expects or wants the students to disappear, but hardworking, tax paying homeowners and renters have a legal right to "quiet enjoyment" of their homes without the detrimental presence of spoiled partying young people who should be housed on campus and utilizing mass transit.
Moving away from the problem is not necessarily an automatic option for those homeowners unpleasantly surprised and adversely affected.
WELL WRITTEN. LEG WORK. INSIGHT. I SEE YA!!!!
THE FOLKS MOVING INTO G'TOWN (WHO IN THE FUCK CALLS THAT AREA BURLEITH? THAT IS THE PROBLEM RIGHT THERE) AND IN AND AROUND G'TOWN UNIVERSITY SHOULD KNOW WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO FACE AS THEY (UNLESS THEY HIT THE LOTTERY) ARE THE ONLY FOLKS WHO CAN AFFORD THOSE HOMES BECAUSE THEY ARE COLLEGE GRADS AND IM SURE HAVE LIVED AS A HIGH-IN-THE-LIFE 21 YEAR OLD AT ONE TIME!
IT AMAZES ME THAT HOWARD U, CATHOLIC U, AND GALLUDET DONT HAVE THIS PROBLEM. IF THEY DID WE WOULDNT KNOW ABOUT IT BECAUSE THOSE FOLKS WHO LIVE IN THOSE AREAS KNOW THAT THESE THINGS HAPPEN IN AND AROUND URBAN COLLEGES AND THEY ARE SOMEWHAT TOLERENT, MOST ARE PREPARED AND MANY ADAPT. THE DIFFERENCE IS THEY ARE IN BLACK AND DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOODS. THOSE POSERS WHO WANT THAT HIGHFALUTIN ZIP CODE BUT NOT THE SHIT THAT COMES ALONG WITH IT ARE GETTING EXACTLY WHAT THEY GIVE OUT.
NEWSFLASH-YA'LL BAMMAS ARE NOT SPECIAL BECAUSE YOU OVERPAID FOR THAT CRAMPED 1700 SLAVE DWELLING BECAUSE YOU WERE TOLD IT'S IN VOGUE. SUCKERS!!!!!
I'm afraid it is you who is confused by history. The Yaocomico may not have had the concept of individual ownership of property that we do, but the notion of tribal lands and territory was well-developed. At the time of contact, their lands were being encroached upon by members of the Iroquois Confederacy from the North. The exchange of land for European goods was made in part to create a buffer between them and the Susquehannock and Seneca to the north. Relations between the Yaocomino and the Maryland settlers were quite good, to the point that the English included provisions in treaties with other tribes that stipulated protections for them. What they could not stipulate was protections from the diseases they brought, which pretty much destroyed the entirety of the tribe by the turn of the 18th century. "Georgetown," est. 1789, did not impose anything on the first peoples.
I cannot speak for GU or the Catholic church, but anyone living in the U.S. today should certainly bear in mind the history of the native peoples of these continents, including what was done to them by our ancestors and institutions that still exist today (I'm a first-generation immigrant to the U.S., but I don't feel this is any less my responsibility than anyone else's. The perpetrators are all dead; it's up to us to learn from history and improve the present).
Anyway, to your ultimate question: "why is taxpayer money subsidizing nonprofit hospitals for the services that other hospitals must pay for?" I noted above the rationale for treating non-profit and for-profit entities differently. Whether this differentiated treatment is justified is a question on which evidence can be brought to bear. If you have any empirical evidence that there is no substantive difference between the two types of institutions, you're welcome to present it. Merely asserting over and over again that there's no difference is not sufficient. As the party challenging the status quo, the burden of evidence falls on you.
@ Dizzy - How can a group "sell" something when their is no "ownership" to surrender in exchange for filthy lucre? I see that you make a distinction between "Georgetown University" and the "Catholic Church" when it suits you and then conflate them again when it does not. Pick one position whydontcha?
"THE FOLKS MOVING INTO G'TOWN (WHO IN THE FUCK CALLS THAT AREA BURLEITH? THAT IS THE PROBLEM RIGHT THERE"
Burleith, my dear young man, is the name of the area above Georgetown University. It's been called that probably twice as long as you've been alive. AS far as I know, it was never part of Georgetown.
In addition, we paid less for the house than one year of tuition at GU.(and may you only be so lucky)
Sincerely,
not exactly a "POSER", BAMMA", or "SUCKER"
INDIGENOUS FOLKS KNOW G'TOWN IS THE AREA THAT ENCOMPASSES EVERYTHING EAST OF FOXHALL RD, EVERYTHING SOUTH OF GLOVER PARK, EVERYTHING WEST OF ROCK CREEK AND NORTH OF THE RIVER.
NOW IF YOUR REAL ESTATE AGENT TOLD YOU IT WAS "BURRRRLIETH" INSTEAD OF G'TOWN THEN YOU ARE A SUCKER. IF YOU GO AROUND TELLING YOUR CO-WORKERS, FAMILY AND FRIENDS THAT YOU LIVE IN "BURRRLIETH" THEN YOU ARE A POSER. IF YOU ARE PUTTING THE G'TOWN PRESS ON 18-21 YEAR OLD STUDENTS WHO BRING IN A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY TO YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD THEN YOU ARE A BAMMA.
You're the one who brought up the Catholic Church (to which I have zero allegiance) in the first place, asking "as a catholic institution (actually its formal legal structure is NOT governed by the catholic church either here or in Rome), doesn't GU feel responsibility for its actions to the determinent of the first peoples" and conflating the two. I was just responding to your formulation. As for how a group can sell when it does not have property ownership, like I said, there was an understanding of collective possession/right to tribal lands. After all, Native American tribes went to war with each other over land all the time. You could ask "how could they go to war over land if they did not believe in owning land?" and the answer would be the same.
Leave a Comment