Graham’s Opponents Struggle to Make Employment, Housing Critiques Stick
Jeff Smith makes a point. (Lydia DePillis)
Councilmember Jim Graham knew he was on friendly turf at last night’s Ward One councilmember debate, hosted by a group of labor unions and social services advocates.
He had arrived at the True Reformer building on U Street a half an hour late, but with good reason: Celebrating a tenant purchase at 1372 Kenyon Street NW, which the tenants had “snatched out of the hands of the owner” and bought for $580,000. Then, Graham waved his scarlet red hero’s cape that one of the forum’s sponsors, Save Our Safety Net had awarded him during the last budget cycle. Several of the unions present had already endorsed his reelection.
The debate was a demonstration of the power of incumbency in a field that mostly agrees on the basics. Things his opponents said the Council should do more of—strengthen emergency rental assistance, increase taxes on the wealthy, toughen tenant protections—Graham has crusaded for in the Council. After Bryan Weaver talked about the housing code violations at the Deauville Apartments in Mount Pleasant before it burned down, the president of the building’s tenants association passionately thanked Graham for helping to secure funding to acquire the building, lashing out at Weaver for even attempting to use the Deauville as a knock on the councilmember. And when a questioner raised a grievance against Pepco, the minor candidates decried the injustice, but Graham actually had his staff on hand to look into the complaint.
The critique Weaver and Jeff Smith seemed to be trying to make is that Graham has governed piecemeal, sprinkling tax breaks and earmarks around instead of working systemically to solve problems. Weaver, speaking more like a debater than a politician, called Graham’s attempt to fix budget holes by raising taxes on millionaires a “gimmick”, saying that the whole tax code needed to be made more progressive. Both Weaver and Smith pounded Graham for handing out more earmarks and tax abatements than anyone other than Marion Barry, without figuring out whether they were actually needed to get projects done.
The problem is, most constituents don’t care, as long as they’re getting a chunk of the pork. And Graham knows it: He pointed out that some of that money had gone to the very groups sponsoring the forum. “May of those organizations got earmarks from Jim Graham, and they did damn good work,” Graham boasted, noting that “my tax relief has been critical” in several housing projects. “I gotta turn to every tool I have in government in order to make that happen.”
Smith finally landed a punch with a chart of the jobs that were supposed to have gone to District residents under the First Source rules in the construction of DCUSA, especially in light of the amount of money Graham had secured to help developer Chris Donatelli get it built—and the amount of money that Donatelli had chipped in for Graham’s campaign. “All these people coming up to you asking for jobs could have had these jobs,” Smith said, to cheers from his sticker-festooned contingent. (There didn’t seem to be many swing voters in the crowd; most declared their allegiance one way or another.)
Graham’s defense: Developers don’t do anything for nothing. “Jobs don’t spring like Athena from the head of Zeus,” he said.
8:51 am
Were we at the same debate? Graham showed up late, seemed out of touch, and was booed at several points. The crowd was clearly with Smith and Weaver, and not just the ones wearing their t-shirts either. They were both fantastic, and either would be an improvement over Graham. This makes me wonder a little who the author is voting for.
9:46 am
Apparently, the incumbency advantage includes favorable coverage from Washington City Paper! Graham indeed seemed out of touch. He was shouted down at several points by the pro-Smith crowd. Both Smith and Weaver made excellent points that really did seem to stick about Graham's record of corruption in the city.
10:41 am
Wow, I'm with Porter - did the author show up for five minutes with Graham and go? I came as an undecided private citizen new to the District, and was shocked at Graham's performance. The man came off as entitled and irritated at the thought of even having to face opponents. He even snapped at some of the citizens raising questions!
Appalling to me was that Graham rarely addressed the content of the questions, which were presented to the candidates before the event. Weaver seemed to be the only one who actually read the questions and had his staff do any research. Graham seemed to hear one word and go off on some red-faced tangent that referred to what he'd done in the past - nothing about good ideas to stem some of the crises confronting the city right now. In a question about the lack of domestic violence shelters in the city, Graham didn't say a word on the topic - nothing about women, children, family violence, available beds in shelters. Nothing.
As for the woman who was "lashing out" at Weaver for citing the Deauville code violations as an indicator of city negligance - this article fails to mention Weaver's response, that the ANC (which he chaired) donated a quarter of its annual budget to victims of the fire in the days after it took place, as well as held clothing and food drives. So Graham's accusation that nobody was there (which he said about everything he did on the Council - excuse me, none of the other candidates were on the Council, so how could they be there the way he was? Same deal with the Pepco complaint.) was false. Even the president of the building's tenants association had to acknowledge the ANC's (and Weaver's) support and agree with his point - that it shouldn't take 7,000 code violations to get the city involved.
Also, on the millionnaire's tax. The only candidate who didn't support it was Marc Morgan. Weaver's comment was that in ADDITION to creating a millionnaire's tax, some of the burden on families living in poverty should be lifted - hence the complete overhaul of the code.
For the record, and because I'm not in the business of pretending to be unbiased, this previously-undecided voter is now firmly in Weaver's camp. That's because I actually listened to what was said last night, though - unlike the author of this article.
11:30 am
This article does not reflect the debate I witnessed last night. The undecided voters in the crowd were certainly less vocal, but they were present. On many of the questions, Graham did not give a direct answer, as Kate mentioned, often going off in unrelated tangents. Smith and Morgan alluded to the lack of enforcement of First Source hiring provisions in the DC USA project and the closest I heard to a rebuttal from Graham (aside from his snarky reference to Greek deities) was that there would be some new legislation in the future (he similarly took credit for the 'millionaire's tax' which we were led to believe would happen ... in the future).
Weaver made some good points on the need for reforming campaign financing and improving code enforcement (as a way to preempt problems such as the Deauville fire). Overall, however, it was Smith who got my support (and I imagine that of others in attendence). He answered the questions - actually suggesting ways to fund affordable housing projects, proposed a program to provide relief from utility costs for homeowners on the verge of foreclosure (and this was before someone brought up the problem with Pepco), and criticized the uncompetitive earmark process as favoring the best connected over the most competant (aside from pandering to the crowd, I did not hear Graham defend his use of no-bid earmarks).
12:11 pm
I agree that this post seems hugely skewed. I've liked some of the things Graham has done on the Council, but I've also had to deal with repeated comments from him like I got last night, "that's such a cute shirt on you!" when trying to engage him on issues I work on. Morgan's response to everything seemed to be "public-private partnership," making me wonder if he's done any homework. I came away knowing who I'm *not* going to vote for, but it's a toss-up for me between Weaver and Smith.
2:50 pm
Are you kidding me? Weaver must have said 10 times that the district has lost 36% of total affordable housing during Graham's tenure on the council and that only 1% of the budget goes to affordable housing.
Smith or Weaver will get the endorsement of the Labor groups in the room.... the shouting match in the hallway post debate between Union Presidents and Graham over his lack of support for First Source projects and the Job Stimulus Legislation summed up the night for me.
Surrender Dorothy!
2:51 pm
Bryan Weaver....with a Y
2:55 pm
Graham's style gets on some Ward 1 activist's nerves. It's condensending and obnoxious. And Smith and Weaver got some good hits in.
But guess what -- most folks in Ward 1 want to have a Councilman who returns your phone call and brings results. And Graham does both. He's got a 77 percent approval rating to show it.
Smith or Weaver are great activists and could be great Councilmen. But if you are trying to unseat a 12-year incumbent if you have to show he's ineffective; or at least won't return your phone calls. From big things to little things, Graham's office has always helped me out.
I glad Smith and Weaver are concered about 10 percent unemployment in Ward 1. But if the president can't fix it, neither can our Ward 1 councilman and its wishful thinking to think they could either.
4:09 pm
And that right there seems to be the biggest shame of all - complacency. Satisfaction with the status quo just because it's a known quantity. Have any of the other candidates NOT answered your calls? Have they had the chance? Just because Graham's met a minimum standard of effectiveness required by his office doesn't make him worthy of my vote.
11:30 pm
I see many people in my community who are trying to score points with Mr. Graham by putting signs in his window or praising the work that he does. In truth, Mr. Graham does do many of the little things right. But time and again, he demonstrates that political survival is his top priority. This city needs leadership at the Council level, not constituent service.
I am generally dismayed at the tenor of this article. It is very often that Americans tell journalists and pollsters alike that they are tired of coverage that examines the horse race and not the issues. Yet, in this article we don't even get an objective fact about the horse race, instead we get a subjective view of the applause meter.
Ward 1 Voters are savvy enough to know that Jim Graham's "inevitable" success on Primary Day is just a big sham.
12:00 am
Everybody,
Look, guys, I guess I read this post differently than it seems you understand it. My point is that because Graham has had 12 years on the council, it's easy for him to point at actions he's taken on the issues everyone cares about, as well as money he's handed out to various groups. Not that he necessarily did the best thing or the most he could do. Just that sitting politicians have built in advantages.
Smith and Weaver are strong opponents. But honestly, aside from the critique that I mentioned from Jeff Smith, I didn't hear a lot of direct attacks on Graham's record last night that did him much damage. Doesn't mean they don't exist. But if they'd been articulated more clearly, I'm sure that would have factored into this post, which was one take on one debate--not a summing up of the merits of each candidate.
Thanks all,
Lydia
9:18 am
Ah, thanks for the clarification. I think we were accidentally confusing this with journalism. Sorry, won't happen again!
6:12 pm
Weaver and Smith have about as good a chance of beating Graham as Lydia does of writing an accurate article.
8:06 pm
Sally, if you think this blog is so terrible, feel free not to read it. Really, no one will mind.
9:24 pm
Hi Lydia,
Thank you for your clarification, you make an excellent point that Graham has had plenty of time in office to put his fingers into just about everything. They don't call it Graham-standing for nothing.
Weaver and Smith, on the other hand, face the challenge of trying to unseat a 12 year incumbent. My hope is that the seeming absence of direct attacks is more a function of a desire on the part of these candidates to not make this a negative campaign, but instead to focus upon a vision for a better future.
When I view it from your perspective, I'm glad you are writing to hold these challengers accountable. They do need to make their case that we cannot afford another four years of Graham-standing.
I am honestly not impressed that Graham brought staffers to a political event and had them look into a case for a constituent. He's certainly had plenty of time to take lots of money from developers to line his campaign war-chest. Weaver and Smith, on the other hand, are fighting tooth and nail for their constituents on volunteer power.
I hope you can appreciate that it seemed to me in the article that you were basically dismissing the challengers and adding another brick to the inevitability angle.
Thanks for your energy on the beat.
-Phil
11:31 am
Why is Phil Lepanto commented here arguing the merits of anything Graham has or has not done. Do yourself a favor buddy, look at your own tenure as an ANC and then consider doing what should come next after realizing you've done shit as an elected official as well- shutting the fuck up. I've seen you at community meetings zoned out and at one, I even saw you lose your train of thought mid-sentence. Then, because your were either high or stupid, you simply chose not to continue speaking. Everyone in the audience noticed, even if you didn't. You've done more harm for Mt. Pleasant than any other ANC- aside from that royal arse Greg. So, whatever critique you were offering holds no water.
Lydia- I liked your article. I thought you did what anyone who was not there and are not biased against Graham, needed to hear- how things actually went down. A few hecklers screaming at Graham might be one thing, but I highly doubt it was as some of these people commenting claim it was. I've seen Graham in action often enough to know that the man is a masterful politician who can manuver in most settings. His track record for his constituents speaks volumes. I might not like him personally, but he's a good councilmember for his ward.
9:17 am
Lydia,
I have no horse in this race, but this was far from a fair account of the debate. I guess you just want personal attacks directed at Graham from Smith and Weaver.
One example: Weaver's account of the Mount Pleasant fire was in response to a question from a union member who asked about retention and creation of affordable units in Ward One. Weaver talked about three areas to improve affordable housing .... The last of which was enforcing code violations. The example he used was in Ward One and had the most violations in the city (7755) and hundreds of thousands in fines before the fire. Where was Jim Graham at anytime during those violations. He headed the agency when these violations started.
Also you make the point Smith's sticker clad contingent cheered for his Buggy line.....but you made no mention that the woman who confronted Weaver had a Jim Graham t-shirt on and was handing out his literature.
You are wrong on the room, none of the unions there have endorsed any candidate. They are going to endorse Weaver or Smith....I would guess Weaver now that the Smith has the Chamber of Commerce Endorsement. Why? Well A reporter of some weight might have also pointed out Graham said he was pro PLA at the event but he just voted against PLAs at the council. Both challengers pointed that out, but i guess it was too wonky a point for you and not a pithy zinger so you didn't care to report that.
11:19 am
Dear City Paper,
When did Housing Colmplex become the mouth piece of Jim Graham? Isn’t Housing Complex Washington City Paper’s blog about DC real estate? And not Lydia DePillis attempt to become press secretary for Jim Graham.
GDS
11:41 am
WOW!!! I just saw this. UNFREAKING BELIEVABLE!!! How about LL covers the Debates. Where is the part about Weaver saying that Jim Graham has raised the most money from corporations of anyone running for DC Council? Or Jeff Smith saying that Graham gave Donetlli and Klein an 8.5 million dollar rebate.
4:11 pm
Dear "Adrian Bent-Me",
Thanks for your comments. I chose to comment on this piece because I am sick and tired of the assumption in this city that Jim Graham does a great job for Ward 1 and that he'll coast to victory because he answers his email before 9am each day. Our city and our ward deserves better than that.
As to your critique of my performance as an elected official, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I am not particularly good at public speaking, particularly extemporaneously. I am not proud of the fact that on more than one occasion I have had trouble keeping my points coherent and concise. Obviously, I disagree with your scoring of the benefit of my service to Mt. Pleasant. Perhaps you will take your activism to the next level and run for volunteer elected office yourself.
-Phil
1:28 pm
Phil,
Why you are you responding to Chuck?
8:30 am
Hi Diggums,
Sock Puppetry definitely has played a prominent role in DC online politics.
Filthy language and ad hominem attacks do not contribute to healthy political discourse. I won't stand for it.
I can accept being criticized and I appreciate useful feedback, but no matter what you say about my performance, it doesn't take away from Jim Graham's lack of leadership. Jeff Smith, Bryan Weaver and Marc Morgan are bringing fresh ideas and important issues to the campaign. Those of us who pay attention cannot let ourselves be bullied or appear to be bullied into being quiet. Now is the time for change!
-Phil
6:55 pm
Impressive details thanks for placing. In fact in all of content of this site you will find something to educate yourself on.