They never go away. They never let up. They rarely traffic in reality. Conspiracy theorists are relentless. That much was clear Friday as the D.C. Council’s Committee on Government Operations and the Environment held a hearing on the Public Land Surplus Standards Amendment Act of 2009, which creates a bureaucratic labyrinth to dispose of government property.
Many people testifying before the council weren’t new CTs. They have seen in every executive — except that of former Mayor Marion Barry — a conspiracy to whack poor people or systematically push them out of the city to advance the desires of big developers. The CTs don’t make the connection between economic development and money needed to fund programs and services for the people they claim to be fighting to protect.
Not surprisingly, CTs now see Mayor Adrian Fenty as an instrument of big business and other moneyed interests. When he was a ward councilman, he was their savior, deployed to blunt the actions of then-Mayor Anthony Williams, who was, you guessed it, helping big developers.
On Friday, the CTs demanded passage, as written, of the surplus land bill. They want government land used for low-income housing, community organizations or neighborhood gardens, or held in escrow for some undetermined need.
Reality is a fleeting thing for some.
It’s easy to understand why Ward 5’s Harry Thomas and At-Large Councilman Phil Mendelson co-introduced the legislation; they mostly were angry with the mayor for closing 23 schools last year. But how did At-Large Councilman Michael Brown become the third man? He was not involved in the school-closing debate.
Residents, hoping to taint the school closure process, accused the mayor of wanting to turn the buildings over to his development friends. Thomas joined the fray. But Carol Schwartz, then-chair of the government operations committee, didn’t move his bill. It was reintroduced this year. Current committee chairwoman Mary Cheh has promised to vote out some version of the bill.
Let’s hope she’s guided by the voice of reason.
As written, the surplus act is redundant, payback legislation. It’s intended to tie the mayor’s hands, making him bow before the council at every turn. Further, it requires reports already mandated by law and creates useless structures like a 19-member advisory group. Further, it’s certain to bring important neighborhood development projects to a standstill.
Council members and residents are right to demand that government assets are used properly to bolster the city’s fiscal health and enhance the quality of life for everyone. But every piece of land or building can’t go to a nonprofit organization or be set aside for low-income housing. Most nonprofit organizations don’t pay property taxes or sales taxes; in fact, they’re usually feeding from the government trough. A city of only the low-income isn’t any better than one with only the rich. And big developers have as much to offer as activists.
Diversity is critical to a community’s vitality. An executive attempting to achieve the right mix shouldn’t be handicapped by vindictive, shortsighted public policy.
