Whether it’s by the councilmembers, the hotel association, passengers, or the taxicab commission, drivers feel put upon.

Everyone, it seems, has done the drivers wrong: There are too many cars on the streets. License fees are too high. Customers have a chip on their shoulders. The hack inspectors are assholes. Get rid of the Taxicab Commission and bring on more hack inspectors! Testimony from a pro-medallion system advocate was met with muttering: "Go back to Chicago!" The list goes on. (And on: More than 80 people signed up to testify at the hearing. As of mid-afternoon, Chairman Mary Cheh hadn't even called the first quarter of the witnesses.)

In the hearing, the drivers are a vocal bunch. Scores of them line the walls, bursting out with frustration frequently enough for Councilmartyr St. Tommy Wells to shush them thus: “If the room is quiet, we won’t notice it’s over capacity.”

Wells was asking them to stop praising him; during his questioning of Taxicab Commission Chair Ron Linton, he was a recipient of cheers as he bore into the reasons why Linton wants to pay for the new meter, GPS, and credit card system with money from a customer surcharge. Not that the drivers want to pay for it themselves, mind you—they simply cheered any criticism of the plan because they want it dead.

And they're still unhappy about the end of the zone system. During testimony, drivers went after Wells for praising the Uber model of cab dispatch—one 30-year veteran said the abolished zone system allowed for higher fares (better for drivers, and thus, service) through shared riding. In response to a complaint from Ward 4 Councilmember Muriel Bowser that her constituents can't catch cabs right now, the zone system was brought up again: a driver insisted that picking up multiple fares was the best way to hit underserved areas.

Wells acknowledged this, wondering if allowing shared rides east of the Anacostia River at night would help residents there catch cabs home. Only if shared rides were allowed everywhere, the driver said: "If you're going to have it east of the river, you need it west of the park."

And on it went, with each driver bringing up a different gripe. With such scattershot complaints—and, likely, diversity of opinion among drivers—it's hard to evaluate their claims. But the anger is obvious, and to listen to the cabbies, everyone else is to blame.

Photo by Shani O. Hilton

Instead, there will be an eight-month study of speeding and pedestrian safety in Wards 4 and 6.

Full release after the jump.

Bowser and Wells table speed limit bill pending safety review

Today, Councilmembers Bowser and Wells withdrew their proposal to reduce residential speed limits to 15 miles per hour.

“My constituents asked me to take a step back and I listened. But, there still needs to be more done to advance pedestrian safety,” said Ms. Bowser.

The Pedestrian Safe Streets Speed Limit Amendment Act was introduced on November 1^st. Designed to reduce traffic speed and increase safety while promoting pedestrian and bicycle activities, the bill would have aligned many neighborhood streets with the speed limits in school zones.

Instead of moving forward with the measure, Councilmembers Bowser and Wells have negotiated an expanded pedestrian safety pilot program to include Wards 4 and 6. The Pilot will last for 8 months and will study speeding on targeted residential streets. The Department of Transportation will monitor road conditions, pedestrian activity, speeding, and determine how to best make our streets safer for everyone.

“The pilot study is a great first step to improving the safety of our streets,” said Bowser. If it turns out there is a need for legislation, we’ll revisit the bill at another time. The goal here is safety for pedestrians; one way or another.”

MPD is addressing speeding concerns on a major arterial as well with the deployment of a mobile speed camera on upper 16th street.

Image via Wikimedia Commons

Jason Morgan and his partner Brendan Harrington told Metro Weekly that they'd just put their food on the conveyor belt when they heard their check-out person say something awful: "Oh God, they're faggots."

Understandably, Harrington was taken aback. "I'm sorry, I didn't hear what you said," he replied. The couple says the homophobic employee only got bolder: "You guys are fucking faggots."

Morgan and Harrington left their groceries where they were, went to the store's management, and later filed a complaint with the D.C. Office of Human Rights, Metro Weekly says.

Ward 6 Councilmember Tommy Wells heard about the story and confronted Safeway, eliciting an apology:

We extend our sincerest apologies to Mr. Morgan and Mr. Harrington for the completely unacceptable comments by our employee. Safeway employs and serves people from all backgrounds, and absolutely does not condone discrimination or intolerance of any kind by any staff member.  The company is reviewing the matter and will take appropriate corrective action.

There's a video that purportedly shows the clerk herself apologizing. A slight smile plays on her lips, though that could just be embarrassment. In any event, the mea culpa is a half-assed one, "I'm deeply sorry for if it offended him in any type of way."

Safeway spokesperson Craig Muckle says Safeway has tried to contact Morgan and Harrington to issue a "direct apology" to them, but haven't been able to reach them. As for the employee, she's being investigated, says Muckle. If the couple decides to return to Safeway, they don't have to worry about running into her, Muckle explains. "She's not in the store," he says. The cashier no longer has "contact with customers."

Muckle says he can't clarify whether she's been suspended or fired for legal reasons.

Update: Safeway has informed Wells that the cashier was fired.

Photo by Daquella manera via Flickr/Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

With the first vote on the city’s new redistricted ward map set for Thursday, Ward 6 Councilmember Tommy Wells and his supporters brought bullhorns to Lincoln Park last night to protest the proposed 17th Street dividing line that would send the eastern edge of Capitol Hill into Ward 7.

As Housing Complex's Lydia DePillis has pointed out, the Ward 6 residents up for grabs are tying themselves into knots to keep the current boundaries intact. At last night’s rally, they summoned the specter of Kingman Park—absorbed by Ward 7 during the District's last redistricting a decade ago—to warn that nearby Rosedale could fall into the hands of an unresponsive councilmember, though none of the speakers referred to Ward 7's Yvette Alexander by name.

“It’s not working, because I’m not across the bridge, I’m over here,” said Hannah Lewis, a volunteer at the Rosedale Recreation Center who lives in Kingman Park and wants her neighborhood moved back into Ward 6. She waved a "Save Kingman Park" sign during Wells' speech in front of Eastern High School, following a march along East Capitol Street.

With chants like "don't gerrymand, we're in command," some protesters complained that there's no way Wards 7 and 8 can represent their interests.

"The folks across the river, they have a whole other set of issues and a whole other set of things going on, and we’re going to be such a small percentage of their constituency that they’re really not going to care," said Patrick Crowley, a former board chairman at Congressional Cemetery.

Wells called the proposed dividing line—17th Street SE at Barney Circle to 17th Street NE at Benning Road—"dumb," but all of the territorial goodwill for Kingman Park and Hill East presents a problem: If Ward 6 takes Kingman Park back, the population imbalance across wards will get worse, not better. When pressed for his solution, Wells pointed to his fellow council members for ideas.

“Is Ward 5 part of the solution?” he asked. “Is Ward 2 really part of the solution? There are other wards that border Wards 7 and 8 that are just untouched.”

Some Rosedale residents were convinced that if the council sends the neighborhood to Ward 7, the neighborhood’s black voting base would be left behind.

“My community will lose a voice and will lose resources once we become Ward 7,” said Sondra Phillips-Gilbert. Before the council sets its sights on bigger goals, she complained, the city needs to focus on drawing fair boundaries that won’t split up neighborhoods.

“How can you ask for statehood when you’re busy disenfranchising and gerrymandering communities?” she asked.

Photos by Nick DeSantis

When it comes to late-night weekend ridership, Metro's most popular stops are not surprising: Dupont Circle, U Street, and Gallery Place. (If that raw data's hard to grasp, Greater Greater Washington made this very handy graph.) While that's probably not all late-night revelers, all those stops are inside the District—so some District officials don't want to give Metro its $50 million in dedicated funding if late night service on the weekend is cut in order to save money, according to WTOP.

That itself could set off a whole chain reaction of funding problems. D.C., Maryland, and Virginia are all supposed to chip in $50 million every year to keep Metro running. There's no telling what would happen if Metro were to lose all that funding—the $150 million pays for 42.4 percent of Metro's daily operations cost. Any recovery from a funding loss that extreme could involve even larger service cuts. Which is sort of a catch-22 for the transit agency.

Late-night businesses in D.C. could lose, too. Saturday night travel has been increasing far faster than ridership for the rail system overall. The number of people entering Metro after 7 p.m. on Saturdays has increased 142 percent between 1995 and 2010. In the same time period, commuter growth only increased 43 percent.

D.C. Councilmember Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6), who's a new addition to the Metro board, has been against the proposal since the beginning. At a committee meeting in February, TBD reported he found the whole idea "foolish":

We're a world class city... To be a world-class city you have to support nightlife. We don't shut the lights off anymore at 5:30 in Washington. It does not make sense to believe Metro is merely for commuters.... We want conventions here, we want tourists to stay here. But it's more than that. It's [about] being taken seriously as a city that has nightlife.

Wells continued his argument at a hearing this Wednesday. "I am strongly opposed to cutting back the night hours of Metro," he said. "It would not only economically injure the District of Columbia substantially, but it would decrease our status as a major city in this country."

WTOP reports preliminary figures suggest weekend service on midnight could save Metro between $3 million and $5 million, as well as giving it an "8th Day" for track repair. That's a far cry from the $50 million they'd lose if the District follows through on its threat. (Not to mention the $7 million some estimate D.C. late-night businesses could lose if the cuts are approved.)

Though, hey—at least Metro General Manager Richard Sarles wouldn't have to worry anymore about drunk people riding Metro.

Photo by isuperwang via Flickr/Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0

Walter E. Washington Convention Center, Jan. 2. © 2011 Matt Dunn

Fraidin testified before the D.C. Council about his findings on Nov. 8 [PDF]. While much if not all of the debate over homeless services has concerned Wells' residency-requirement bill, which is slated for a vote today, the shelter's cruddy, crowded conditions have not gone away. Wells told the Washington Post recently that the D.C. General campus has become a dumping ground.

Fraidin says that after making those 10 visits this past summer, he has come to the conclusion that the city should stop putting families in D.C. General. "There are significant concerns that relate to food, health, safety, privacy and social development. A good communal shelter is a bad place for kids. This particular institution has significant problems," he says in an interview with City Desk.

Fraidin revealed his findings during the November hearing. He stated:

For example, a 10-year old boy, who said he likes school and that his favorite subject is math, expressed worry that there is no place for him to do his homework at D.C. General.  The same little boy said he can’t have his school friends over, because he lives in the shelter, and can’t play with other children who live in the shelter because they always have to be quiet and are not allowed to visit in each other’s rooms.

The mother of two girls said “all of the kids who live here are afraid, and they are suffering.  They have to be quiet all the time, they can’t play in the hallways, but it is not safe to play outside with all the smoking and drinking and prison discharges going on.”

Children and parents pointed out that because there is no outdoor play area, outside play is limited to bare dirt and gravel.

And here's more from Fraidin:

Another parent said “it would be better if they had at least one bathtub on each floor for children that are not old enough to get in the shower.  Right now, residents must wash younger children in the bathroom sinks.”

Many residents said they simply cannot eat the food provided at the shelter.  One woman said she and her daughters all got food poisoning during the first week they lived there.

Many children are kept in the rooms to avoid residents who are smoking, drinking, cursing, fighting, and using drugs.

Numerous people confirmed that elevators are frequently out of service.  One woman told me that she carried her baby – in his stroller — up five flights of stairs.  Her friend said “It’s lucky I was there that time, so I could carry her groceries for her.”  Another woman said a mother and child had been caught in a broken elevator for 30 or 45 minutes.

The mother of three little children said the shelter has mice, flies, and scabies, even though she is “always cleaning.”  Another mother said her “one-year old baby’s hand was caught in a snap trap.”

In one interview, I learned that a family had been separated due to conditions at the shelter.  The heat in the shelter was so severe that one woman brought her child to a grandmother’s house, where the child had been living without her mother.

Scabies? Food poisoning? Broken elevators? Fraidin concluded his testimony with a critique of Wells' homeless legislation. The bill would relax restrictions on the types of shelter options for homeless families. In other words, it could produce more D.C. Generals. Fraidin testified:

Budget pressures are hard to resist in these times. The voices of children and parents at D.C. General, however, make it clear that removing the apartment-style requirement will harm children.  We know that insufficient attention to children’s needs actually costs money in the long run, while costing the children a chance at a productive and happy life.  Many policy questions are susceptible of multiple understandings and a range of reasonable choices.  On this one, however, there is no way to argue that more communal care will be good for children.  The children and parents whom we met speak with one voice, which says that we should move toward closing D.C. General, rather than housing more and more children in institutions.

In the past two years, two infants died at D.C. General. Last year, it became known for its mismanagement and rough conditions (no air condition on certain floors, peeling paint, mold, and food that caused some kids to have to go to a working hospital). On April 2, Mayor Adrian Fenty announced that the shelter's management would be fired.

Today, Mayor-Elect Vincent Gray got a letter urging that he vote against the bill. The letter was signed by:

Ayuda, Bread for the City, Capital Area Food Bank, Capital Area Immigrants' Rights Coalition, Covenant House Washington, DC Alliance of Youth Advocates, DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence, DC Fiscal Policy Institute, D.C. Hunger Solutions, DC Jobs Council, DC Women's Agenda, District Alliance for Safe Housing, Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appleas Project, Gray Panthers of Metropolitan Washington, Homeless Children's Playtime Project, Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia, LIFT-DC, Mary's Center for Maternal and Child Care Inc., Miriam's Kitchen, National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, Positive Force DC, Quality Trust for Individuals with Disabilities, So Others Might Eat (SOME), Survivors and Advocates for Empowerment (SAFE) Inc., Thrive DC, University Legal Services, The Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless, We Are Family, Wider Opportunities for Women, the Women's Collective, Women's Committee of 100, Women Empowered Against Violence Inc., and two professors from Catholic University.

Wells may want to reach out to these folks if he wants to keep his progressive membership card. The letter and much more after the jump.

The basic issues with the bill involve the residency requirement for services and the legislation's allowing for the possibility of more communal-style shelter. While the bill makes some exemptions (victims of domestic violence, for example), it still potentially puts families at risk. It also doesn't make clear how victims of domestic violence or, say, human trafficking, would show proof). The bill will give homeless families a three-day grace period to prove they are District residents.

It is unclear what happens if they fail to cut through D.C.'s red tape in time (one of the ways a family can prove they are District residents: they can provide a lease). What is clear? District workers are going to be stuck hassling homeless families to show some I.D. And if they don't show it, it's going to fall on District workers to show those families the door.

The bill as written would also authorize the mayor to loosen regulations on family shelters. Currently, families can only stay in apartment-style shelter. The bill would allow the mayor to place them in non-apartment dwellings. But the bill calls for the alternative placement to be "private rooms." There's nothing in the bill that says how many families would be put in these private rooms. One family per room? Six? It's unclear whether cramming families in say, D.C. General's cafeteria would now be totally legal. In fact, the bill would basically legitimize D.C. General as a shelter when it was never meant to be one, when even Wells thinks its a dumping ground.

The letter to Gray states:

"Rather than taking this short-sighted approach, any concerns that non-residents may be taking away resources from DC residents should be resolved in a thoughtful, data-driven manner that brings regional partners to the table. Likewise, concerns about DC General being out of compliance with Homeless Services Reform Act ("HSRA") standards for sheltering families should focus on developing a long-term plan to shelter all families in units that comply with these important standards and meet basic health and safety laws."

The letter goes on to urge the D.C. council (via the Interagency Council on Homelessness) to actually investigate whether in fact non-residents are gaining access to District shelters, study the movements of homeless residents across state lines, and develop a long-term plan to move the city into compliance with the standards already set for housing homeless families.

And finally, in a fact sheet attached to the letter, the advocates state that so far there is zero proof that non-residents are actually utilizing city shelters. The only evidence provided to the city so far is that non-residents applied for shelter.

Amber Harding, an attorney with the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless says all of the attention devoted to the bill takes away from the real issue: the fact that D.C. General is already at capacity.

"Our position is that this is at a time of a severe budget crisis, they are choosing to go forward with a law that will reduce life-saving services to residents while creating zero fiscal savings to the District," Harding says. "Our concern is that people will not get outreach services, crisis intervention and emergency shelter while they are waiting to overcome bureaucratic hurdles to access emergency services."

Maybe I missed it but I did not see anyone offering praise to Walmart.

Legal Aid wrote:

"I, for one, am thankful that the District has a TANF program so that there is a safety net for the District’s most vulnerable families with children. When parents lose their jobs and can’t qualify for unemployment insurance, when a woman is fleeing her abuser and when a father is waiting for his SSI application to be approved, there is a program that will make sure that their family is not utterly destitute. The program should be improved so that it can better help parents who can work become employable and provide better linkages to supports for parents who cannot work."

Poverty & Policy is thankful for....Tommy Wells support on the tax issue:

"I’m acutely anxious for those whose plight I know best — my fellow District of Columbia residents. So many unemployed or in jobs that don’t pay enough for them to afford the high cost of living here. A chronic problem made worse by the recession. For many of them, an upswing in the local job market won’t be enough.

Budget cuts have already damaged the local safety net. And now we’re told there have to be more cuts to get the budget back in balance. Councilmember Jack Evans is all for this. “Make as many cuts as possible,” he says, “so we can stay away from revenue hikes.”

I’m thankful not all Councilmembers share his view — especially thankful for my own Councilmember Tommy Wells’s outspoken support for a tax increase.

He’s of course concerned about the safety net programs under the jurisdiction of the Human Services Committee he chairs. But the argument he’s making for progressive reforms in our tax system reaches beyond his turf."

The DC Fiscal Policy Institute, of course, posts an awesomely wonky reponse from the Capital Area Asset Builders:

"It’s the busy season for us at Capital Area Asset Builders (CAAB); we’re gearing up for tax season. But while taxes can fill many with dread, CAAB is grateful for tax credits that help working families in DC, like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). 

The EITC can significantly augment the income of a working individual or family.  Both the federal government and DC offer an EITC, with the result that a single mother of two earning $15,000 can receive more than $6,000 in combined EITC benefits. Studies have shown that the EITC has helped many single parents leave welfare for work, and that the EITC lifts more children out of poverty than any other single federal program. The EITC also stimulates the local economy. A recent study showed that each dollar received from the EITC creates a further $1.58 in local economic activity, as families spend tax refunds locally on food, clothes, and other family needs." 

DC Learns pens a heartfelt tribute to literacy programs:

"My mother taught me how to read when I was three.  She told me that she was very bored staying at home and hated soap operas, so she read books about how to teach reading, and taught both myself and my sister so by the time I entered school, we were both  reading several grade levels ahead of where most of our peers were.  I also remember going over to one of my younger friends houses when I was in fourth grade to “teach” him how to read. At that age, I couldn’t really teach anyone how to read, but the intent to help was there.

Many people aren’t as lucky. There are many reasons why people aren’t literate, or didn’t get a high school diploma, or have problems learning the English language.  The good news is that there are many programs in the District to help them.  I’ve been fortunate to work in some of them and have visited most of them to know that because of the threat of constant funding shortages, people have to really want to be in this field. I’m thankful to have met and known for many years people who have taught me through their experience how to care deeply about others.

But most of all, I’m thankful for getting to know all of the adult learners I’ve taught, met through my job at the DC Public Library, talked briefly through my outreach activities, and also gotten to know through my advocacy efforts volunteering for DC LEARNs."

"DC plan for homeless families is to provide apts. $1,500 per.Should there be limit on number of fams hsd from other states? NY Times says no"

"Overflow for homeless families is DC Gen. 135 fams now at capacity. Should DC provide unlimited capacity for other states. NY Times says yes"

More tweets after the jump!

Wells goes on to tweet:

"Fams and individs in DC have right to shelter during cold. Surrounding states do not. % of fams in DC shelters from Md has tripled.

To bal our budget we must cut foster care, pub ed, disability pymnts, juv justice, TANF, pub safety and raise taxes to get to 175 mil

Mont co and PG co have a residency req. for shelter. We shld hse when freezing but not provide apt and shld return to home state when safe.

NY Times recommends DC expand shelter capacity if needed and dun Congress for the cost. Good luck with that.

CFO said no cost savings b/c of current waitlist for homeless services. DC residents should have dibs, no?"

Today, the New York Times' editorial board took the unusual step of issuing an opinion on a local D.C. issue. The board thoroughly shreds Ward 6 Councilmember Tommy Wells' incredibly lazy proposal to limit homeless services to District residents. If only the Washington Post would be so bold.

Times editorial after the jump.

The Times editorial's first graph pretty much says it all:

"In another example of how budgetary pressures can lead to very bad public policy, the City Council of the District of Columbia is considering turning away homeless people from winter shelters if they cannot show ties to the district through proof of a recent legal address or receipt of public assistance. That would put the lives of many vulnerable people at risk, and it won’t save a dime."

Here's some more of the paper's supreme takedown:

"According to the district’s chief financial officer, the plan would not relieve any budget pressures. The waiting line for space in shelters is always so long that if a family from elsewhere wouldn’t qualify, a family in the district would take its place. But the sponsor of the idea, Councilman Tommy Wells, who leads the human services committee, is wrestling with a $175 million shortfall in the human services budget and is eager to show that he can make tough choices. Tough and inhumane.

Mr. Wells should instead be looking for any help he can find to expand the shelter system — dunning Congress, charitable foundations, local philanthropists. Waiting until someone freezes to death will be too late.

Poverty, hunger and homelessness know no borders. The Supreme Court underscored this truth 41 years ago when it said states can’t adopt policies to restrict the freedom of the poor to travel from one to another, whether pursuing their destiny or survival. If the nation’s capital won’t honor the spirit of the law — and its own statute and long history — all Americans will be shamed."

file photo of D.C. General during last March.

Citing the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless, the org writes that the bill:

"*Requires verification of DC residency before one can access emergency shelter or almost any other homeless service, including winter shelter, outreach, Housing First, meal programs and crisis intervention services, and defines residency more narrowly than any other program in DC.

*Attempts to exclude a) those who seek “low barrier” shelter (which does not include any family shelters or “severe weather” shelters), as well as b) applicants to shelter who are victims of “domestic abuse, sexual assault, or human trafficking” (but provides no information on how a person would verify such exemption prior to receiving services), from residency requirements during severe weather only.

*Eliminates the longstanding health and safety protections for families with minor children by removing the requirement in the winter that family shelter be “apartment-style.” Removes any limit on the number of families that can be placed together in one room with communal sleeping, eating, and bathroom facilities.

*Bill 18-1059 would increase the burden on the agencies that provide shelter, increase the cost per client the agencies serve, and would open DC up to lawsuits. But the most troubling, is that DC would leave individuals and families who can not prove residency out in the cold, even at risk of hypothermia."

I assume that Save Our Safety Net is gonna want their capes back from Wells, Barry and others who support this legislation.

But instead of focusing on the city's dwindling shelters and the poor conditions at D.C. General, the city's emergency family shelter, it chose to take a non-stand on Ward 6 Councilmember Tommy Wells' residency-requirement proposal:

"The District is right to want to do something about surrounding jurisdictions that take advantage of its safety net by directing their needy residents to cross the border. At the same time, it needs to be careful that new rules don't create insurmountable barriers for those it wants to help.

We are glad that Mr. Wells pulled back on plans to push the legislation through as emergency legislation. More needs to be learned about the scope of this problem. Advocates for the homeless have legitimate concerns about the ability of people, with complex problems and troubled lives, to meet bureaucratic requirements. There are also constitutional concerns that need to be addressed concerning residency and equal treatment. Mr. Wells says that he is confident a workable solution can be found."

Wow. A public hearing is scheduled for Nov. 8 on Wells' bill. One question that still needs to be sorted out: Do we trust the city's claim that 10 percent of the 180 families seeking emergency shelter this past summer were from non-District residents? And if the number is true, so what? How are District officials preparing for the sure-to-be crowded shelter system come winter?

Late October census data shows shelters are at or near capacity. At D.C. General, there are already 132 families and 217 children.

"Rather than proposing to address these causes of the current shelter crisis, Mr. Wells instead proposed—now on a permanent basis—to weaken the District’s commitment to life-saving hypothermia shelter. Eliminating the requirement for apartment-style shelter for families and imposing onerous verification requirements in order for DC residents to access life-saving shelter and services will likely have grave consequences this winter. Though we haven’t yet seen the language of the permanent bill, as we’ve heard it described the legislation still puts District residents in harm’s way…based on assumptions that are rooted in tenuous and conflicting numbers about who seeks—and who is served in—DC’s shelters."

City Desk is waiting for a call back from Wells. What I want to know is: Why is he spending all this time on this bill? What about fixing D.C. General or providing more alternatives for homeless families? The District still hasn't figured out a proper place to house homeless families.