Showing posts with label corporate welfare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corporate welfare. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 2, 2014

School Board Declines To Pay For Lack Of Experience - Teach For America Rejected

Cracks in the empire? And why does a state (Wisconsin) want to pay TFA? What are they getting?

Why one school system is dropping Teach For America



The school board in Durham, N.C., has voted 6-1 to end its relationship with Teach For America after the 2015-16 school year, when all of the 12 TFA teachers hired in the past few years will have completed the two years of service they promise to make when joining the organization.
What makes it interesting is what school board members said during a discussion about the issue. The Herald Sun reported that several board members said they did not want to continue a relationship with the organization because TFA corps members are highly inexperienced. (How could they not be? TFA recruits mostly newly graduated college students, gives them five weeks of summer training and places them in high-needs classrooms.) There were also concerns expressed that corps members are required only to promise to stay for two years and though some stay longer, some leave before the two years are up, causing a great deal of turnover in many schools with at-risk students who greatly need stability.
School board member Mike Lee was quoted as saying: “I have a problem with the two years and gone, using it like community service.”
Diane Ravitch, on her blog, noted that Pittsburgh school board had voted late last year not to renew its TFA contract.  In December, I wrote about the decision to drop the $750,000 TFA contract:
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that Danielle Montoya, regional communications director for Teach For America, said the new vote was the first time any school board had reversed itself on bringing in TFA corps members into a district. Earlier this year, however, Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton vetoed a line item inserted into the state’s higher education legislation that would have given $1.5 million to Teach For America over two years.
The newspaper quoted board member Regina Holley as saying she did not understand how TFA corps members could know how to handle tough classroom situations with so little training: “I find that a bit outrageous.”

Valerie Strauss covers education and runs The Answer Sheet blog.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/09/01/why-one-school-system-is-dropping-teach-for-america/?tid=collaborative_1.0_strip_3

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Washington Gas Starts To Pay The Piper

Washington Gas to clean Anacostia riverbank under new agreement

By , Published: December 12

Washington Gas Light Co. has agreed to clean a section of land along the Anacostia River that it contaminated with harmful chemicals for more than a century, federal officials announced Monday.

As part of an agreement involving the utility, the U.S. Interior Department and the D.C. government, Washington Gas will also pay for a comprehensive investigation of toxic contamination of soil and groundwater on the site. It will repay nearly $1 million to federal agencies for investigations that revealed how badly the river was fouled where the company once processed gas.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar called the agreement “a milestone in our efforts . . . to transform what was once known as America’s forgotten river into a model urban park.” A walkway is slated to traverse the area once when the work is done.

But the Anacostia Watershed Society said much is unknown about the agreement, including its cost and how the utility will be held accountable for its work. “How much they’re committing is really unclear at this point,” said Brent Bolin, director of advocacy for AWS.

A Washington Gas spokesman said contaminated soil will be removed and replaced with clean soil over four acres. The spokesman, Reuben Rodriguez, declined to give an estimate of the cleanup cost.

For 60 years, from 1888 to 1948, the utility manufactured gas feed stocks at a facility along Water Street SE, just upstream from the 11th Street Bridge on the river. Waste created by the gasification process contained harmful organic compounds such as benzene, cyanide, arsenic and other contaminants such as tar, coal and coke.

The company continued to use the “East Station” site intermittently until it was closed in 1983 and demolished in 1986. Between that time and 1999, six major federal environmental investigations were performed at the site.

“This has been a cleanup 100 years in the making,” Bolin said. “These are known carcinogens. They are an exposure risk for people who fish, people who boat, people who row.”

The Anacostia River was called “one of the most polluted waterways in the nation” in a May report by the advocacy group DC Appleseed.

With its low flows, the Anacostia cannot easily flush pollutants, many of which come from combined sewage runoff and from chemical waste from the Navy Yard, according to the report. It called on the federal government, as one of the river’s biggest polluters, to take a larger role in the cleanup.

Despite of a 2006 federal decision that called for a cleanup amid hiking trails, yacht clubs and a fishery, work was never completed, Bolin said. AWS filed a suit in August to compel the utility and federal government to act. “You couldn’t get the federal government to care about this issue until the Obama administration,” Bolin said.

The city has been acquiring land nearby with an eye on its Anacostia Waterfront Initiative, a vision for recreational, residential and commercial development along the river.

“This settlement is a major step forward in restoring this vibrant river . . . [and] protecting habitat and wildlife,” Salazar said.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/washington-gas-to-clean-anacostia-riverbank-under-new-agreement/2011/12/12/gIQAc0ihqO_story.html

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

HPV Immunization - Bachmann Got It Right - Who Else Does Merck Have In It's Pocket?

Lot of press about HPV today due to Michelle Bachmann's questioning of Rick Perry. The Washington Post did an article about Perry's connections to Merck, the manufacturer of the HPV immunization drug Gardasil. This is the link to the article - http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/perry-has-deep-financial-ties-to-maker-of-hpv-vaccine/2011/09/13/gIQAVKKqPK_story.html?hpid=z1&sub=AR
Following are comments I left on the article -


While I adamantly disagree with Michelle Bachmann on most things when she refers to crony capitalism, she is on to something.
I live in DC which requires this immunization unless parents opt out. On the strong advice of my daughter's pediatrician (female), we have opted out. Dangerous might ruffle some sensibilities but anyway you stack it up, there have been very serious side effects from this drug and the overall benefit / protection is at best questionable.
This immunization is first about profits for Merck. Somewhere down the line it might be about women's health but if you think that is the driving factor, I have a bridge to sell you. As I follow it in DC, by being required by government, Merck is absolved of liability. Pretty good deal for Merck, bad deal for for girls.
This immunization was approved by the FDA barely 5 years ago in 2006. Within a couple of years, Merck had succeeded in getting it required for school entry in countless jurisdictions. There was no great public out cry for this - it took Merck a lot of lobbying and yes MONEY to get it required. If Merck thought this drug was so needed, why would they need it required by government and thus relieve them of liability? If it is so good, why wouldn't people seek it out? Because it isn't so good.
By having the vaccine required by law it guarantees Merck a paying market and no liability - wow! I'd spend a lot of money too if I could have a business model like that!
Further, here in DC, the language is less than clear. After filling out the opt out, we still received a notice from the school nurse yesterday (how ironic) about our daughter not having it. Nowhere in the language of the letter does it say parents can opt out just because they want to - it refers to opting out for religious and/or medical reasons. Not exactly full disclosure.
In DC, David Catania is the man who pushed this requirement through the City Council. I would love the Post to do an article about his ties to Merck. This is crony capitalism at it's best.

Wednesday, July 7, 2010

Getting And Getting - Or Fenty/Skinner - The Scam That Keeps Taking

Fenty's tax payer provided pit bull, Mr. Nickles is often more than happy to litigate. Not here though - is Scott Bolden that good of a lawyer? Bolden's comments near the end make me nauseous. Such a f@*&ing liar!



D.C. will pay Fenty friend's company to settle construction suit


By Nikita Stewart
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 2, 2010; 11:06 PM

The District has agreed to pay $550,000 to settle a $2.3 million claim by Banneker Ventures, the firm whose city contract to oversee the construction of renovated and new parks and recreation centers was terminated last year in the wake of an ongoing D.C. Council probe.

Banneker, owned by a friend and fraternity brother of Mayor Adrian M. Fenty's, argued that it owned the drawings and designs produced by the architects and engineers that the firm hired as subcontractors for the projects.

Although Fenty (D) has repeatedly said the recreation centers and ballfields are on track to be built, there have been delays because Banneker served its subcontractors with "cease and desist" letters in February to prevent them from working with the city agency now managing the projects.

"They had threatened to sue the architects, engineers, because they said their work was intellectual property of Banneker," Attorney General Peter Nickles said in an interview Friday. "There were lots of issues, but now we have a settlement."

The agreement took effect Thursday, when it was signed by Nickles and Adrianne Todman, interim executive director of the D.C. Housing Authority. It comes two weeks before a special council committee expects a briefing from lawyer Robert P. Trout, who is heading the council's independent investigation on a pro bono basis. Trout is reviewing how the contract was handled.

D.C. Council member Harry Thomas Jr. (D-Ward 5), chairman of the Committee on Libraries, Parks and Recreation, said Trout will present an update of the probe but that a final report is not ready. The investigation has been slowed by witnesses who remain reluctant despite subpoenas, he said.

The contracts controversy has been a campaign issue for Fenty, who is in a competitive contest against chief rival D.C. Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray (D) in the Sept. 14 Democratic primary.

Thomas said he is aware that releasing a final report closer to the election could be perceived as politically motivated, but he added that Trout and his staff are trying to be thorough. "What we're trying to do is have true findings as opposed to thinking this is a political witch hunt. We want to do this right," Thomas said.

Omar Karim, owner of Banneker, and Regan Associates, the Virginia-based firm that served as Banneker's consultant, have been heavy contributors to Fenty's campaign. One of Banneker's subcontractors was Liberty Engineering and Design, a firm owned by Sinclair Skinner, another Fenty friend and fraternity brother.

The firm earned about $900,000 on its subcontract, according to testimony Skinner gave before the committee after a Superior Court judge threatened him with a costly fine for failing to appear. Skinner, who is not a licensed engineer, farmed out much of the work to other firms.

He remains a visible volunteer on Fenty's campaign.

Lawyer A. Scott Bolden, who represents Karim and Skinner, called the situation "a legal mess created by others."

"Unfortunately, the unnecessary and unreasonable scrutiny of this D.C. contract is ongoing with the D.C. Council at great expense to my clients and the residents of the District of Columbia, with the real victims being D.C. residents, Banneker and its many subcontractors who worked extremely hard to simply renovate and rebuild several recreation and community centers in the most challenged part of the city," Bolden said in an e-mail Friday.

The council began its investigation in October after learning that the mayor's administration had funneled millions of dollars through the D.C. Housing Authority for the projects. The transfer circumvented a city law requiring the council to vote on contracts exceeding $1 million.

Banneker's initial contract was $4.2 million and allowed the firm to collect a 9 percent markup on some subcontractors it hired for nearly $100 million.

In December, the housing authority and the Fenty administration were criticized for giving Banneker $2.5 million on Christmas Eve for work done by the firm and 12 subcontractors from September through November.

This week's $550,000 settlement is supposed to cover unresolved payments.

Under the agreement, Banneker will get nearly $265,000 within 10 days. Banneker will receive the remaining $285,000 when it can show that it has paid money owed to nine subcontractors, including $11,863 to Liberty.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/02/AR2010070204030.html

Saturday, June 12, 2010

Good Questions From William Jordan

Various people think William Jordan is goes on too much about too much on the various neighborhood list serves but in my opinion he asks good questions - a recent posting of his from the South Columbia Heights list serve:

Developer Accountability From the Mayor and City Council?

Posted by: "whj@melanet.com" whj@melanet.com whjmela

Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:32 pm (PDT)




Dear Mayor & Council,

According to accounts in the Washington Business Journal (June 11-17, 2010) reporting on finding recently released by the DC Auditor, Donatelli Development's failure to comply with DC First Source Laws has cost District Residents approximately $2,153,568 in wages. As well, may be out of compliance with city Storm Water Management regulations, Highland Park Project, yet during one of the toughest budget years in a decade, the Council & Mayor plan to reward this development company with over $8.0M in property tax relief, with zero strings attached. In fact, if the budget passes as is Donatelli Development will be issued a refund check for approximately $1.5M.

Are there any plans by the Mayor or Council to bring any accountability to this matter. Or does this development company fall under the AIG rule. Can someone explain this.

William Jordan, ANC1A 05



"FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET SUPPORT ACT OF 2010" (page 217).

http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/images/00001/20100413171523.pdf

9 SUBTITLE D. PARK PLACE AT PETWORTH, HIGHLAD PARK, AD
10 HIGHLAD PARK PHASE II ECOOMIC DEVELOPMET ACT OF 2010
11 Sec. 7041. Short title.
12 This subtitle may be cited as the “Park Place at Petworth, Highland Park, and Highland
13 Park Phase II Economic Development Amendment Act of 2010†.
14 Sec. 7042. Section 3 of the Park Place at Petworth, Highland Park, and Highland Park
15 Phase II Economic Development Act of 2010, signed by the Mayor on January 25, 2010 (D.C.
16 Act 18-290; 57 DCR 1186) is repealed.
17 Sec. 7043. Section 47-4624 of the District of Columbia Official Code is amended to read
18 as follows:
19 (a) Subsection (b) is amended to read as follows:
20 “(b) Starting on October 1, 2010, the Park Place at Petworth, Highland Park, and
21 Highland Park Phase II Properties shall be exempt from the real property tax imposed by Chapter
8 of this title for 20 years as follows: 10 years at 50% and a 5% increase in years 1 11 through 20
2 until the annual real property taxation equals 100%.†.
3 (b) A new subsection (b-1) is added to read as follows:
4 “(b-1) All interest and penalties associated with real property taxes that have been
5 assessed for the period beginning on October 1, 2008, and ending 45 days after the effective date
6 of the Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Support Act of 2010 against the Park Place at Petworth, Highland
7 Park, or Highland Park Phase II Properties, shall be forgiven, and any payments already made for
8 this period, as of the effective date of this act, shall be refunded or credited against real property
9 taxes owed on the properties.â€

Fiscal Impact Statement - Park Place at Petworth, Highland Park and Highland Park Phase II
Highland [http://app.cfo.dc.gov/services/fiscal_impact/pdf/spring09/B18-231_.pdf] http://app.cfo.dc.gov/services/fiscal_impact/pdf/spring09/B18-231_.pdf
Auditor’s Review of Environmental Standards Requirements Pursuant to the Compliance Unit Establishment Act of 2008
[http://dcauditor.org/DCA/Reports/DCA052010.pdf] http://dcauditor.org/DCA/Reports/DCA052010.pdf
Auditor's Review of Compliance With the Living Wage Act and First Source Act Requirements Pursuant to the Compliance Unit Establishment Act of 2008
http://dcauditor.org/DCA/Reports/Livg%20Wage%201st%20Srce%20Act_20100607162643.pdf

Friday, March 5, 2010

Takes Money To Get Money - When Welfare Is Development

D.C. gives H Street developer $5 million tax break

By: Bill Myers
Examiner Staff Writer
March 4, 2010


The D.C. Council has given a multimillion-dollar subsidy to a developer of the gentrifying H Street corridor. Without dissent, the council approved an emergency measure that grants a tax abatement to Steuart Investment Co., owner of the lot at the corner of Third and H Streets Northeast. The tax break is designed to help the Chevy Chase developer build a high-rise building with shopping, restaurants and apartments or condos. Under the law, Steuart's property taxes will be frozen at what it paid in fiscal 2010 for 10 years. The company then will pay a portion of taxes above the fiscal 2010 level through fiscal 2030. The breaks are capped at $5 million -- 7 percent of the project's expected costs.
Third & H Street project

» $67.5 million

» 42,000 square feet of retail, including a multi-story grocery store

» 210 apartments or condos

» Parking garage with up to 270 spaces

A planned grocery store gets its own 10-year tax break, but that isn't capped. In the fall, Chief Financial Officer Natwar Gandhi warned the council against the legislation because the city -- facing nine-figure budget gaps -- can't afford it. The legislation was championed by Councilman Tommy Wells, D-Ward 6, who represents H Street. The Steuart development, he said, "is the linchpin to the revitalization of H Street." "H Street, since the riots of 40 years ago, has been a street noted by chaos, disorder, drug sales," Wells told The Examiner. "The street is really rebounding, but it takes investment and city help." Developers and city planners have been eyeing the H Street area between Third and 15th streets as a potential real estate gold mine as young professionals spill out of Capitol Hill and head north looking for nests. A series of boutiques and high-end restaurants and bars have sprouted on H Street in the past decade, and the city is planning to build a streetcar line there. In related legislation, the council also passed a bill that would allow business owners along H Street to obtain a property tax deferment this year. Wells said the deferments would help compensate owners whose businesses are being hurt by the city's reconstruction efforts on H Street. A similar law was passed last year. Two businesses inquired about the tax deferment, and one applied for it, finance office spokesman David Umansky said.

bmyers@washingtonexaminer.com

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Washington Gas Passes Expenses To Customers

D.C. gas customers face monthly surcharge

By: Michael Neibauer
Examiner Staff Writer
October 13, 2009

Washington Gas customers in the District face a surcharge on their monthly bills starting in 2011 to pay for a program aimed at preventing degradation of pipes and dangerous leaks. The surcharge amount has not been determined, but the District's share is expected to run more than $6 million a year divided among 151,000 Washington Gas customers -- an average of about $40 per year.

The settlement between Washington Gas and the Office of the People's Counsel, the District's utility ratepayer advocate, is nearly five years in the making. During that period, the utility was accused by experts of playing a "wait and see" game by failing to address segments of pipes vulnerable to leaks.

The deal allows Washington Gas to recover the costs of injecting hexane, an ingredient in liquefied natural gas, into its system. The utility also has agreed to spend as much as $28 million over seven years to replace aging pipes and mechanical couplings -- devices used to connect pipes -- in the District. Those costs would not be included in the surcharge. The fee would kick in each Oct. 1, starting in 2011, when the cap on gas rates expires. The agreement, which People's Counsel Elizabeth Noel said would ensure "safe and reliable service," is now before the D.C. Public Service Commission for approval. Washington Gas introduced hexane in 2004 following a spike in gas leaks, especially in Prince George's County. The utility said its liquid natural gas was losing hydrocarbons as it flowed from Dominion's terminal in Calvert County, which had a "deleterious effect on rubber seals in the mechanical couplings." Hexane stabilized its product.

The price of hexane, like gasoline, is volatile. Washington Gas uses roughly 1 million gallons a year alone at its Gardiner Road plant in Waldorf, which serves Prince George's and the District.

The Hudson River Group, a consultant hired by the Office of the People's Counsel, deemed hexane a questionable temporary fix and an ineffective permanent solution. Washington Gas should identify which couplings are failing and replace them as soon as possible, the group said.

"The safety code ... requires [Washington Gas] to recondition or phase out segments vulnerable to leaks," the group said in testimony. "It has not done so to date."

mneibauer@washingtonexaminer.com





Find this article at:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/D_C_-gas-customers-face-monthly-surcharge-8371330-64040967.html

Friday, September 25, 2009

DCPS Taking On Special Ed?

Why did DCPS wait over the summer to see if things "would improve" to then disrupt a school year? Best for the children as RheeFenty so often declare? More going on here than the Post reports......




City to Pull 170 Students From Private School

By Michael Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 25, 2009

A Springfield private school that is paid by the District of Columbia to provide education to students with special needs is in danger of closing after the District decided this week to pull its students, citing concerns about the quality of instruction.

Accotink Academy, which has worked with District students for more than 15 years, received an e-mail Wednesday from Richard Nyankori, the District's deputy chancellor for special education, who informed the school that 170 students were being pulled in the coming weeks.

Accotink Academy said it had not been told of any concerns before notices were sent to parents Tuesday. They also said the academy's teachers were highly qualified and that the school wasn't going down without a fight.

Most of the academy's students are from the District, and the school, which has been open since 1964, will be forced to close if they are pulled, said Elaine N. McConnell, the academy's founder.

"We've never had a blemish on our name," she said. "We weren't given one word, not one single word."

The District has nearly 9,300 special education students, including those in public charter schools, and about 30 percent of them are enrolled in private schools because the District can't meet their needs. The cost to taxpayers in tuition and transportation is about $200 million a year. Accotink Academy has been receiving about $10 million a year from the D.C. school system, according to District figures.

The e-mail from Nyankori said that Accotink staff members were "indifferent" to the students and that the quality of teaching was "quite low." It also said teachers didn't seem to be following individualized education plans, which guide instruction for special education students.

D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles said the school should have known from repeated monitoring visits that it was being evaluated. It was "not a close case," he said.

"If they couldn't see that what was going on was inappropriate," he said, "then they must have been blind."

He said the school wasn't closed over the summer because "there may have been some hope" that it would improve. "They haven't gotten the message," he said.

Several parents said that they had not seen any problems and that they were worried that switching schools a month into the school year would disrupt students far more than any changes that might have been made over the summer.

"I have never had problems with getting any educational need that I wanted for him," said Barbara Jones-Dixon, whose 18-year-old son is in his final year at the school. When her son arrived there eight years ago, Jones-Dixon said, "he was a child that did not trust anyone. . . . He has made tremendous progress."

The students and families will meet with placement teams in the coming weeks to determine where they will be going to school. They will be allowed to go to private schools, according to letters they received from the school system. Nickles said he did not think the change would save the District any money.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/24/AR2009092404842.html

Monday, July 27, 2009

U.S. Withheld Data on Risks of Distracted Driving



I am regularly amazed by the belated recognition of the obvious. Seemingly otherwise sane people tell me that using cell phones, texting and other distractions including drinking coffee, eating food, changing the radio station...... while driving are not hazardous distractions. Oh what denial we can accept. I do it myself. I don't talk on the phone at all while driving in DC yet in Maryland I will answer the phone and try to pull over as quick as possible. Sometimes the conversation is over before finding a pullover spot, but I can attest to the fact that it is a distraction. And I can walk and eat pizza at the same time.

According to the article below from The Washington Post, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration withheld from the public research showing serious risks to all drivers posed by drivers using cellphones while driving. the Post cites sources who said the info was withheld so as not to anger Congress. Hmmmmmm....... smells like money to me ........... my safety versus cell phone text culture.....

Having recently driven a number of miles at high speeds, I am vividly aware of the small fraction of reality that keeps the car on it's path, able to avoid disaster. The NHTSA research showed at least 240,000 car accidents in 2002 due to cell phone use. That is way too many and avoidable.




July 21, 2009
Driven to Distraction

U.S. Withheld Data on Risks of Distracted Driving

In 2003, researchers at a federal agency proposed a long-term study of 10,000 drivers to assess the safety risk posed by cellphone use behind the wheel.

They sought the study based on evidence that such multitasking was a serious and growing threat on America's roadways.

But such an ambitious study never happened. And the researchers' agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, decided not to make public hundreds of pages of research and warnings about the use of phones by drivers — in part, officials say, because of concerns about angering Congress.

On Tuesday, the full body of research is being made public for the first time by two consumer advocacy groups, which filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit for the documents. The Center for Auto Safety and Public Citizen provided a copy to The New York Times, which is publishing the documents on its Web site.

In interviews, the officials who withheld the research offered their fullest explanation to date.

The former head of the highway safety agency said he was urged to withhold the research to avoid antagonizing members of Congress who had warned the agency to stick to its mission of gathering safety data but not to lobby states.

Critics say that rationale and the failure of the Transportation Department, which oversees the highway agency, to more vigorously pursue distracted driving has cost lives and allowed to blossom a culture of behind-the-wheel multitasking.

"We're looking at a problem that could be as bad as drunk driving, and the government has covered it up," said Clarence Ditlow, director of the Center for Auto Safety.

The group petitioned for the information after The Los Angeles Times wrote about the research last year. Mother Jones later published additional details.

The highway safety researchers estimated that cellphone use by drivers caused around 955 fatalities and 240,000 accidents over all in 2002.

The researchers also shelved a draft letter they had prepared for Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta to send, warning states that hands-free laws might not solve the problem.

That letter said that hands-free headsets did not eliminate the serious accident risk. The reason: a cellphone conversation itself, not just holding the phone, takes drivers' focus off the road, studies showed.

The research mirrors other studies about the dangers of multitasking behind the wheel. Research shows that motorists talking on a phone are four times as likely to crash as other drivers, and are as likely to cause an accident as someone with a .08 blood alcohol content.

The three-person research team based the fatality and accident estimates on studies that quantified the risks of distracted driving, and an assumption that 6 percent of drivers were talking on the phone at a given time. That figure is roughly half what the Transportation Department assumes to be the case now.

More precise data does not exist because most police forces have not collected long-term data connecting cellphones to accidents. That is why the researchers called for the broader study with 10,000 or more drivers.

"We nevertheless have concluded that the use of cellphones while driving has contributed to an increasing number of crashes, injuries and fatalities," according to a "talking points" memo the researchers compiled in July 2003.

It added: "We therefore recommend that the drivers not use wireless communication devices, including text messaging systems, when driving, except in an emergency."

Dr. Jeffrey Runge, then the head of the highway safety agency, said he grudgingly decided not to publish the Mineta letter and policy recommendation because of larger political considerations.

At the time, Congress had warned the agency not to use its research to lobby states. Dr. Runge said transit officials told him he could jeopardize billions of dollars of its financing if Congress perceived the agency had crossed the line into lobbying.

The fate of the research was discussed during a high-level meeting at the transportation secretary's office. The meeting included Dr. Runge, several staff members with the highway safety agency and John Flaherty, Mr. Mineta's chief of staff.

Mr. Flaherty recalls that the group decided not to publish the research because the data was too inconclusive.

He recalled that Dr. Runge "indicated that the data was incomplete and there was going to be more research coming."

He recalled summing up his position as, the agency "should make a decision as to whether they wanted to wait for more data."

But Dr. Runge recalled feeling that the issue was dire and needed public attention. "I really wanted to send a letter to governors telling them not to give a pass to hands-free laws," said Dr. Runge, whose staff spent months preparing a binder of materials for their presentation.

His broader goal, he said, was to educate people about the dangers of distracted driving. "Based on the research, there was a possibility of this becoming a really big problem," he said.

But "my advisers upstairs said we should not poke a finger in the eye of the appropriations committee," he recalled.

He said Mr. Flaherty asked him, "Do we have enough evidence right now to not create enemies among all the stakeholders?"

Those stakeholders, Dr. Runge said, were the House Appropriations Committee and groups that might influence it, notably voters who multitask while driving and, to a much smaller degree, the cellphone industry.

Mr. Mineta, who left as transportation secretary in 2006, said he was unaware of the meeting.

"I don't think it ever got to my desk," he said of the research. Mr. Ditlow, from the Center for Auto Safety, said the officials' explanations for withholding the research raised concerns. He said the research did not constitute lobbying of states.

And he said it was consistent with the highway safety agency's research in other areas, like seat belts.

Mr. Ditlow said that putting fears of the House panel ahead of public safety was an abdication of the agency's responsibility.

"No public health and safety agency should allow its research to be suppressed for political reasons," he said. Doing so "will cause deaths and injuries on the highways."

State Senator Joe Simitian of California, who tried from 2001 to 2005 to pass a hands-free cellphone law over objections of the cellphone industry, said the unpublished research would have helped him convince his colleagues that cellphones cause serious — deadly — distraction.

"Years went by when lives could have been saved," said Mr. Simitian, who in 2006 finally pushed through a hands-free law that took effect last year.

The highway safety agency, rather than commissioning a study with 10,000 drivers, handled one involving 100 cars. That study, done with the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, placed cameras inside cars to monitor drivers for more than a year.

It found that drivers using a hand-held device were at 1.3 times greater risk of a crash or near crash, and at three times the risk when dialing compared with other drivers.

Not all the research went unpublished. The safety agency put on its Web site an annotated bibliography of more than 150 scientific articles that showed how a cellphone conversation while driving taxes the brain's processing power, impairing reaction time. But the bibliography included only a list of the articles, not the one-page summaries of each one written by the researchers.

Chris Monk, who researched the bibliography for 18 months, said the exclusion of the summaries took the teeth out of the findings.

"It became almost laughable," Mr. Monk said. "What they wound up finally publishing was a stripped-out summary."

Mr. Monk and Mike Goodman, a division head at the safety agency who led the research project, theorize that the agency might have felt pressure from the cellphone industry. Mr. Goodman said the industry frequently checked in with him about the project and his progress. (He said the industry knew about the research because he had worked with it to gather some data).

But he could offer no proof of the industry's influence. Mr. Flaherty said he was not contacted or influenced by the industry.

The agency's current policy is that people should not use cellphones while driving. Rae Tyson, a spokesman for the agency, said it did not, and would not, publish the researchers' fatality estimates because they were not definitive enough.

He said the other research was compiled as background material for the agency, not for the public.

"There is no report to publish," he said.



Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

Sunday, July 26, 2009

William Jordon on the case - $11.4M "View 14" Development Bailout



Seems William Jordon was a little ahead of the Post on details of developers with their hand in the till....... see Good Ol' Socialist Capitalism from May 26, 2009


--- On Wed, 2/25/09, William Jordan <whj@melanet.com> wrote:

From: William Jordan <whj@melanet.com>
Subject: [columbia_heights] $11.4M "View 14" Development Bailout
To: southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com, columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2009, 9:30 AM

VIEW 14 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2009".
http://www.dccounci l.washington. dc.us/images/ 00001/2009010816 1933.pdf

When I going through the schedule to find the time and date of the DDOT
Performance & Budget Hearing, I came across a hearing for a bailout plan
for the View 14 Condo development at 14th St & Florida Ave. NW for
$5.7M or $11.4M is opportunity costs are included(such projects were
pedaled as increasing the tax base not taking away from it.).

My first question has to do with the affordable housing component of the
bailout. The legislation talks about setting aside 6000sqft as
affordable to those making up to 80% of AMI or about $72K/yr. I
searched through the PUD hearing transcript and found that 15,000sqft
was proffered for the affordable component. Is the 6000sqft in addition
to the 15,000sqft or is it a reduction?

My second question has to do with the approach to this bailout. I've
noticed that tax waviers from real estate and transfer taxes is commonly
being used to achieve public policy goals. Usually, this has been none
for non-profits and public/private partnerships, but more and more for
purely commercial developments. My question , is anyone aware any
legislation like this in the pipeline or on the bookss to support the
development of our small business retail corridors such as the 1400
block of Park Rd., 14th St North of the Tivoli, 11th St or Georgia Ave?
Based on presentations I've seen I kow that the business on the 1400
Block of Park or the small businesses going into DC USA could use such a
boost.

William

__._,_.___
Give Back

Yahoo! for Good

Get inspired

by a good cause.

Y! Toolbar

Get it Free!

easy 1-click access

to your groups.

Yahoo! Groups

Start a group

in 3 easy steps.

Connect with others.

.

__,_._,___

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

good ol' socialist capitalism

Everybody wants a bailout - what happened to good ol' capitalism?
"If life were a thing that money could buy/
Then the rich would live and the poor would die..."




Donatelli Development, others request tax breaks for D.C. projects



http://washington.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2009/05/18/daily75.html?surround=lfn

Thursday, May 21, 2009, 2:55pm EDT |
Modified: Thursday, May 21, 2009, 3:15pm

Donatelli Development, others request tax breaks for D.C. projects
Washington Business Journal - by Jonathan O'Connell Staff Reporter

If the D.C. Council approves abatements for developers, Highland Park is one property that would benefit. View Larger Donatelli Development was one of six property owners that came to the D.C. Council Thursday seeking what its executives call badly needed tax breaks in the recession.

President Chris Donatelli is requesting an estimated $8.5 million in commercial property tax abatements for his Highland Park development atop the Columbia Heights Metro station and his nearly completed Park Place development atop the Petworth station.

Donatelli originally planned condominiums for both projects but in the downturn has decided to offer both the 229-unit Highland Park, which is open and being actively marketed, and the 156-unit Park Place, which is nearly complete, as apartments.

He told the D.C. Council's finance and revenue committee that in building other projects in the city like the Ellington on U Street and Kenyon Square in Columbia Heights, "We have never before found it necessary to request a public subsidy or tax abatement." But he said that rents weren't what he had hoped for to this point. "We've realized lower rents than we expected on these units," he said.

A bill to give the Donatelli projects a lift was submitted by Councilman Jim Graham, D-Ward 1, and Councilwoman Muriel Bowser, D-Ward 4. If it were to pass and money were to be then appropriated separately, the city would provide 100 percent real property tax exemption for 10 years and a reduced relief for the following 10 years. Bowser, who has been pushing for improvements to Georgia Avenue, site of Park Place, said Donatelli had been a pioneer in entering the city's neighborhoods early and said the city needed to step in "because we recognize how important it is for these projects not only to move forward but to thrive."

Seeking the largest relief before the committee was the Union Station Redevelopment Corp., whose president, David Ball, charged that the city ought not to be seeking property taxes from sub leases in Union Station and requested $50 million in relief through 2024.

Vienna-based Metropolitan Development seeks $20.3 million in tax exemptions for a project in Shaw, part of Committee Chair Jack Evans's Ward 2. The new development, north of the Walter E. Washington Convention Center, would include 256 apartments, 15,000-square-feet of ground level retail and underground parking to replace the Kelsey Gardens housing complex.

Perseus Realty came seeking $138,000 in tax abatements so it can build 1 Hotel & Residences, touted as the first LEED-certified hotel in D.C. The 180-room hotel would be a five-star property at the corner of 22nd and M streets NW, at the site of the former Nigerian Embassy, and operated by Starwoord. Nonprofits the Studio Theatre and KIPP DC charter schools sought relief for their properties on 14th Street NW and on Douglass Road SE, respectively. All will require separate appropriations from the city to receive relief.

Ed Lazere, executive director of the D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, opposed all of the abatements and suggested that the city ought to make larger choices about which property owners ought to receive breaks rather than picking them seemingly at random. Unlike subsidies like tax increment financing, "there is no application process for tax abatements and no required financial analysis by the [Chief Financial Officer].

Lazere said it wasn't fair to bail out one or two property owners in the recession when hundreds of other businesses and nonprofit organizations were in the same predicament. Developers like Perseus and Donatelli, he pointed out, knew the risks of beginning their projects before the downturn began. "We do not believe that a changed economic climate or the fact that some include affordable housing are sufficient reasons for tax abatement subsidies," he said.

But Evans said that even if the process could be improved, the worst thing the government can do in a recession is leave businesses to flounder. He said he planned to move all of the bills. "When a government pulls back in that type of environment it makes it much more dire circumstances than when the government steps up to the plate," he said.