Jonetta Rose Barras
Spendthrifts in the District
By: Jonetta Rose Barras
Examiner Columnist
November 19, 2008
I don’t envy D.C. Council members Jack Evans and David Catania.
Though it’s clear they don’t enjoy the role, the two are fast becoming voices of fiscal restraint. Sometimes, however, even they acquiesce to colleagues’ pleas and special constituents’ demands. That happened earlier this week, when despite their better judgment, they supported legislation introduced by Ward 8’s Marion Barry ensuring at least $30 million is allocated for the Housing Production Trust Fund.
“This is going to be at the expense of spending money on something else,” warned Evans.
“This is not the season of a chicken in every pot. We need to be straight with people,” said Catania. “We need to protect the core first.”
“The core issues are the issues that we define,” replied Ward 5’s Harry Thomas Jr.
The government’s chief responsibilities can’t change on the whim of legislators whose positions on issues often correlate directly to the pressure applied by special interest groups. For example, should the government be first funder for nonprofit organizations unable to raise money in the private sector? Is the government obligated to provide a job on demand for every teen and young adult during the summer?
Some District officials don’t seem to understand the government simply can’t provide everything to all people all the time. Instead of establishing priorities, their answer to tough financial times is to raise taxes and fees.
Consider Ward 1 Councilman Jim Graham’s effort at Tuesday’s legislative session to increase parking meter fees across the city. Hoping to push the measure through as an emergency, he argued that many major cities, including New York, Chicago and San Francisco, charge as much as $3 for parking in their central business districts. In the District, the increase would be from $1 to $1.50 per hour; where the current fee is 50 cents, then it would go to 75 cents per hour. Graham said about $6 million could be generated this year. About 70 percent of meter users don’t live in the city, he said.
Will the 30 percent who are District residents be exempted from the increase?
“These monies are not being collected to go into the general fund. They are to save the rent supplement program and the Housing Trust fund,” Graham told me. “These are critical programs that affect human beings. That’s what compels me.”
Opposition to Graham’s measure was largely around the effect on neighborhood commercial corridors, and the absence of a public hearing. But at-large member Carol Schwartz reminded the proponents that there were other ways to fund “critical” projects: “There’s a lot of waste and lots of duplication that should be looked at first.”
Graham withdrew his bill, but promised to return. He doesn’t get it. The country is in a recession. If he wants to fund “critical”
programs, he and his colleagues should cut spending. That’s what residents are doing.
Though it’s clear they don’t enjoy the role, the two are fast becoming voices of fiscal restraint. Sometimes, however, even they acquiesce to colleagues’ pleas and special constituents’ demands. That happened earlier this week, when despite their better judgment, they supported legislation introduced by Ward 8’s Marion Barry ensuring at least $30 million is allocated for the Housing Production Trust Fund.
“This is going to be at the expense of spending money on something else,” warned Evans.
“This is not the season of a chicken in every pot. We need to be straight with people,” said Catania. “We need to protect the core first.”
“The core issues are the issues that we define,” replied Ward 5’s Harry Thomas Jr.
The government’s chief responsibilities can’t change on the whim of legislators whose positions on issues often correlate directly to the pressure applied by special interest groups. For example, should the government be first funder for nonprofit organizations unable to raise money in the private sector? Is the government obligated to provide a job on demand for every teen and young adult during the summer?
Some District officials don’t seem to understand the government simply can’t provide everything to all people all the time. Instead of establishing priorities, their answer to tough financial times is to raise taxes and fees.
Consider Ward 1 Councilman Jim Graham’s effort at Tuesday’s legislative session to increase parking meter fees across the city. Hoping to push the measure through as an emergency, he argued that many major cities, including New York, Chicago and San Francisco, charge as much as $3 for parking in their central business districts. In the District, the increase would be from $1 to $1.50 per hour; where the current fee is 50 cents, then it would go to 75 cents per hour. Graham said about $6 million could be generated this year. About 70 percent of meter users don’t live in the city, he said.
Will the 30 percent who are District residents be exempted from the increase?
“These monies are not being collected to go into the general fund. They are to save the rent supplement program and the Housing Trust fund,” Graham told me. “These are critical programs that affect human beings. That’s what compels me.”
Opposition to Graham’s measure was largely around the effect on neighborhood commercial corridors, and the absence of a public hearing. But at-large member Carol Schwartz reminded the proponents that there were other ways to fund “critical” projects: “There’s a lot of waste and lots of duplication that should be looked at first.”
Graham withdrew his bill, but promised to return. He doesn’t get it. The country is in a recession. If he wants to fund “critical”
programs, he and his colleagues should cut spending. That’s what residents are doing.
Follow The Examiner
