It’s the latest, trendy “gotcha!”  Catching your Metro bus or train operator behaving badly.

In this post-Ft. Totten world, it’s not surprising that citizens are scrutinizing their drivers more. Last week, a Metro train operator was caught texting while driving. Then yesterday, a Maryland bus driver was accused of reading a book while operating her vehicle. (In this day and age, it’s still nice to hear that someone actually picked up a book.)

There’s a kind ‘off with his head!!!’ response to these incidents. Take for example, the reaction to the cell phone incident, which produced this response from At-Large Councilmember Kwame Brown:

Kwame: Metro Operator Should be Fired
Driver caught texting while operating a metro car

“I am shocked that an operator would be callous enough to risk the safety of passengers by texting on a cell phone,” said Councilmember Brown. “Metro didn’t go far enough in the disciplinary action against the individual. The operator should be fired and anyone caught in the future should face the same consequences.”

Or, the last book story, which leads with this line: “The purge of local public transportation machine operators shall take no prisoners!”

Yesterday, Metro launched a zero tolerance policy against all distractions, like phones and pdas, and passengers are being urged to capture any kind of evidence.

Image by Divine Miss M., Flickr Creative Commons

The Convention Center Hotel, located at 9th Street and Massachusetts Ave.

“I want you to imagine a District of Columbia without a Verizon Center and a Convention Center,” stated Ward 2 Councilmember Jack Evans. “It would probably look like Detroit.”

“We are now spending records amounts of money in our school system. We are spending record amounts in our human services system. Those record amounts of money are generated in economic development,” Evans stated.

These comments came midway through today’s hearing on the convention center hotel, a long-stalled project which was kicked into gear again earlier this month.

The success of the convention center and the city’s tourist industry, according to various DC officials and business leaders, rests on the completion of this 1,170-room Marriott, which would have 100,000 square feet of meeting space.  Shaw locals that testified about the project seemed pretty jazzed about the retail/restaurant possibilities for the neighborhood as well. 

The question, of course, is financing and just how much of it the District is willing to put forth (and then we’re back to the whole Nats Park discussion again.)

When the hotel idea was first revived, the city was considering issuing $750 million in bonds to help fund the project,  breaking the city’s bond cap,  and possibly pulling subsidies from some other projects. Then, last week, the Washington Business Journal reported that the developers had found a way to possibly raise their equity participation.

Here’s the latest plan, according to Chief Financial Officer Nat Gandhi’s testimony:

“The proposed financing plan includes funding for $537 million project costs. About $331 million, or 62 percent of the funding will come from private sources and $206 million or 38 percent from the [Washington Convention Center Authority]” That 206 million is a combination of 50 million in WCCA investment, 22 million in District/WCCA lease secured debt, and 134 million in TIF-secured debt.”

The discussion—the parts I saw earlier on—about the hotel mainly centered around all its benefits to Shaw, to boosting tax dollars, and how it would augment convention business, in general. And then, there was Ward 6 Councilmember Tommy Wells, who wondered several times if a big designated convention center hotel was really all that necessary. After all, San Francisco doesn’t have one, he stated.

Plus, said Wells, “Some of the areas with large convention centers and hotels, when they’re not busy, they’re the ‘deadest parts’ of town.”

Next up for the convention center hotel bill: This Friday, Kwame Brown’s Committee on Economic Development will convene a special meeting and mark-up of certain bills and proposed resolutions at 4:00 p.m., Room 120.

Renderings by Cooper Carry

This Wednesday, two D.C. council committees will hold a joint hearing on the Washington Convention Center’s hotel, which may finally be built after years of stalling (not to mention, a recent announcement from competitor National Harbor that Disney was going to build there).

When the hotel idea was first revived, the city was considering issuing $750 million in bonds to help fund the project,  breaking the city’s bond cap,  and possibly pulling subsidies from some other projects, which sent Southwest neighborhood activists—fearful their local developments would lose funding—into total freak-out mode.

But now, everyone has settled down a bit. Last week, the Washington Business Journal reported that the developers had found a way to possibly “raise their equity participation from $135 million to $320 million with the backing of ING Clarion Real Estate Investment, the U.S. subsidiary of ING Real Estate and one of the city’s largest property owners.”

Big sigh of relief, although the same article reported that the deal was not final.

So what’s left? Just a bit of begging from Ward 2 Councilmember Jack Evans to make sure people show up to Wednesday’s hearing “to come and emphasize how important it is to build the hotel and move forward so it is open by January 2013 when we have our first bookings in the hotel.”

The hearing has been scheduled for June 24, 2009 at 11:00 a.m. in room 500 of the John A. Wilson Building, 1350 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20004.

Image by OZinOH, Flickr Creative Commons

This is clearly not the best economic time for reviving long dormant projects. But earlier this week, D.C. officials implored that the long-awaited convention center hotel must begin construction pronto—or else D.C. could lose serious convention business to P.G. County’s National Harbor and other cities with all their luring amenities in place.

The question now, of course, is how the city will raise funds. Here’s one idea that’s being floated, according to a Washington Business Journal article:

Another option would be to pull subsidies from other city real estate deals, something mentioned both by [Ward 1 Councilmember Jack Evans] and Councilman Kwame Brown, D-At large and chair of the economic development committee. “I think the question is whether [other council members] are interested in reducing projects in their ward,” Brown said.

Image by  NCinDC, Flickr Creative Commons

But the adjustments just seem to ask for more openness and transparency from the beginning when it comes to developers’ side of the bargain. How bad could that be? Judge for yourself. The Washington Business Journal reports:

“[Kwame Brown], D-at large, said the changes will require developers in public-private partnerships to provide more information earlier on in the land disposition agreement process. That means they would have to provide final documentation on how they will hire D.C. residents, partner with small D.C. businesses and provide community benefits packages at the time the city considers legislation — not when developers come to final terms with the city. It would also require any changes to deals be approved by the council.

But not without some of his own personal touches that seem to significantly impact the resolution. Last night, Brown sent out a statement about these changes, and of course, to give “thanks” to the mayor for pushing him to review the bill again. I’m going to post his summary of how the proposal was altered.  (SWDC Blog’s on the story, as well.) The full statement is after the jump:

- Affordable Housing: The developer is required to create affordable housing units in accordance with the NCRC and AWC Reorganization Act of 2008.

- Fulfilling the Community s Vision: The developer is required to abide by terms promised to the community in the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative Framework Plan and the Southwest Waterfront Plan Approval Resolution of 2003.

- Don t Flip the Property: The property cannot be transferred without prior consent of the District and approval of the Council. The city will have the right to repossess the property if the developer fails to meet the requirements of the agreement.

- Local Small Business Participation: Small businesses are required to receive 35% of the contracting dollars, 20% equity participation and 20% development participation.

- Oversight and Transparency: To review the financial stability of the developer, the Mayor will submit an amended Initial Project Funding and Financing Plan by May 1, 2009 to the Council and will submit further reports upon written request by the Council.

Kwame Thanks Mayor for Reintroducing SW Waterfront Disposition

with Affordable Housing and Community Benefits

WASHINGTON Today, At-Large Councilmember Kwame R. Brown, Chair of the Committee on Economic Development, thanked Mayor Adrian M. Fenty for transmitting a revised resolution approving the disposition of land for the Southwest Waterfront project. The revised resolution includes language that protects promises made to the community in the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative Framework and small area plans in addition to affordable housing and Council oversight requirements. The resolution is expected to be taken up during the Council s legislative meeting tomorrow.

The agreement that the Mayor would transmit a revised emergency resolution was struck late Friday evening with input from the administration and the developer. Councilmember Brown thanked both Chairman Vincent C. Gray and Ward 6 Councilmember Tommy Wells for their integral role in the process.

Residents want to know that when developers make promises to them that those promises are kept, said Councilmember Brown. My priorities were to work cooperatively to move the project forward but to also preserve the community s vision for the waterfront. That included protecting affordable housing and providing responsible oversight of the project. This is a major win for District residents whose voices have been heard. Chairman Gray and Councilmember Wells played critical roles throughout this week s discussions and this would not have happened without them.

Councilmember Brown fought to have the following provisions included in the final resolution to protect the interests of the community and move the project forward in a timely, responsible manner:

- Affordable Housing: The developer is required to create affordable housing units in accordance with the NCRC and AWC Reorganization Act of 2008.
- Fulfilling the Community s Vision: The developer is required to abide by terms promised to the community in the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative Framework Plan and the Southwest Waterfront Plan Approval Resolution of 2003.
- Don t Flip the Property: The property cannot be transferred without prior consent of the District and approval of the Council. The city will have the right to repossess the property if the developer fails to meet the requirements of the agreement.
- Local Small Business Participation: Small businesses are required to receive 35% of the contracting dollars, 20% equity participation and 20% development participation.
- Oversight and Transparency: To review the financial stability of the developer, the Mayor will submit an amended Initial Project Funding and Financing Plan by May 1, 2009 to the Council and will submit further reports upon written request by the Council.

I have always been determined to move this project forward, while maximizing the benefit to District residents, said Councilmember Brown. I am encouraged that we were able to come together and finalize the deal with these protections in place.

After completing a long-delayed hearing Thursday on a land deal for redevelopment of D.C.’s Southwest waterfront, Councilman Kwame Brown, D-at large and chair of the Economic Development Committee, cancelled a mark-up on the project Friday and is preparing new legislation that would make considerable changes to the deal.

The $1.5 billion project requires the District to transfer 16 acres of land to the developers, led by PN Hoffman and Struever Bros. Eccles & Rouse.

Although he and the rest of the council approved $198 million in public financing for the project months ago, Brown is expected to propose new requirements for rental units, a second appraisal of the land value, and a deadline for the developers to get a financing commitment and other measures. He was vetting the idea with fellow councilmembers Friday afternoon.

This morning’s Washington Business Journal leads with a front page profile on Kwame Brown, Chair of the Council’s Economic Development Committee. According to the piece, Kwame’s been flexing his legislative muscle, refusing to move forward on development bills until he reviews all the proper information, and generally not bowing to pressure from the building community.

Case and point: the 16 acre Southwest development land deal, “which would allow the mayor to convey 16 acres to a development team led by D.C.-based PN Hoffman Inc. and Baltimore-based Struever Bros. Eccles & Rouse.” According to the Journal, the council was expected to vote on the bill in November, but Brown refused to review the bill again in committee until this week. Journal writer Jonathan O’ Connell’s latest story has more on the subject:

Brown said he had no confidence the developers could execute the project in this financial environment. He also said the affordable housing component is inadequate and the equity offered to the team’s small, local and minority-owned companies is a “slap in the face” to them, even though four of their executives testified that they are pleased with their involvement in the project.

“I fundamentally have issues with a number of areas of this transaction,” Brown said.

The delay displeased Councilman Tommy Wells, D-Ward 6, whose ward includes the Southwest waterfront and who said, “It’s the wrong message for the Economic Development Committee to send if we don’t move it forward.”

Shawn Seaman, PN Hoffman vice president, said “the delays have added additional cost to the project and have moved the project commencement into the midst of the current capital market crisis.”

Although Brown eventually agreed to hold the hearing, he still maintains that Albert and his team “don’t really care how projects get done. They just want them to get done. I want to make sure that they actually benefit residents.”

He reconvened the hearing, he said, because “I don’t want to be seen as the one holding up the project.”

Photo by Darrow Montgomery