The Passenger

Cropp thinks School Property

Linda Cropp's got a plan. The DCist and The Examiner report that Cropp is coming out against Kathy Patterson's school funding plan (though curiously, she's not quite against the substance of it).

Cropp said she wasn't completely opposed to raising taxes but does not favor the proposal put forward by D.C. Council Member Kathleen Patterson, D-Ward 3, which includes cigarette and commercial business taxes and delaying a long-planned income tax cut.

"There may be some I would support," Cropp told The Examiner on Wednesday. When asked which ones, Cropp said she would have to look over any future proposals. A committee vote is scheduled on Patterson's legislation in early December.

Cropp said her "air space" package could take years to implement and would involve numerous public hearings, and she said she realizes the immediate needs of the school system. Cropp said her proposal could be part of a larger package - including the proposed tax increases - aimed at rehabilitating the school buildings.

That is some vague talk if I've ever heard it. I can't help but wonder two things. First, is this intended mostly as a dig at Patterson, my Ward 3 Councillor who is campaigning for Chairperson--the gig Cropp's vacating to run for Mayor--in 2006? Second, is Cropp putting politics over policy? The biggest strike against Patterson's plan was that it came without enough public input. Cropp is promising, pointedly, numerous public hearings. Because she is opposing a current funding solution with an admittedly slow, long-term proposal, so what's up?

It's hard, on first read, to fully Judge Cropp's idea. How much land or "air space" does the city really have to offer? How will it impact schools and neighborhoods? How sustainable is it? Are we talking about sales or leases? Over time, what is the revenue estimate? It seems most likely that this revenue raiser will be part of a larger school funding proposal. The question then is why did Cropp come out like she was knocking Patterson's plan even as she agreed that her idea could go hand in hand with Patterson's (or a modified version of Patterson's)? And finally, was this confrontational tone intentional or manufactured by The Examiner?

The GPCA vs. Safe Streets and Nightlife

So, another month in Glover Park, another issue of the Glover Park Gazette. Once again we find that the Glover Park Citizens' Association is protesting Town Hall's hours extention, and discussing "their concern" with Bourbon's proposal to add additional outdoor seating (that would apparently close by midnight on the weekends...and obviously will have a major impact heading into winter, but whatever). The GPCA will be filing written opposition to Town Hall's request. Though the Gazette reports that the GPCA has 203 members and 284 "voting members," there was no word on how many actually attended the last meeting. I didn't, so I'm not going to complain about their vote, but I will say that it's silly and counterproductive.

This all is coming down the pipe just as the police report a series of "hotel robberies" (for which they have a suspect in custody) and reports that some Georgetown Medical School students have gotten robbed in the southern part of the neighborhood. Now, obviously Glover Park is about as safe as neighborhoods come, but the Association should be happy to adapt the easiest, cheapest, most mutually beneficial way of keeping it like that. They would be wise to see the chance to stay (way, way) ahead of the curve.

That way is allowing bars to stay open later. Why? Open bars and shops means more light on the streets. More light on the streets means less crime. Less crime means a better neighborhood for families, which is the alleged concern of the GPCA. And who knows? With the additional hours, maybe the increased success of Bourbon and Town Hall would encourage another place to open down Wisconsin Ave on that block with all the vacancies. A kid can dream, right?

To recap. Later hours for Town Hall and Bourbon means more happy young people, means more happy business owners, means more ambient light on the sidewalks and a less desolate neighborhood cityscape, means a safer neighborhood for everyone, means Glover Park stays the nice down home place that the GPCAers are trying to maintain. This part of town is basically as quiet and mellow as a part of a major metropolitan area can be. Slightly increasing the liveliness of the "main street" area by allowing more establisments to spill light onto the sidewalk later will only serve to make it even more chill.

So what's the problem? Where did this random fear of noise come from? Even the Grog and Tankard--the only place on the Wisconsin strip that has bands--is barely audible from the sidewalk directly in front of it. If two bars stay open an hour later, there is basically no discernable downside, but a great potential upside.

What's Up With the Glover Park Citizens Association? They should relax and let Town Hall do its thing.

It seems like some vocal members of the Glover Park Citizens Association, along with certain members of the local ANC have a really misguided notion of how best to preserve and promote the good things about Glover Park, my neighborhood in Washington, DC.

A couple months ago, a new restaurant and bar opened up on Wisconsin Avenue called Town Hall. Town Hall, which is owned and operated by a group of relatively young businessmen who have experience working at a handful of other District establishments, took over a long defunct commercial space that used to contain a restaurant called The Saveur. Town Hall is sort of at the south end of the Glover Park strip. It is across the street from a sort of office complex and just up the street from a couple of other shops and a cemetary. It's pretty quiet down there at night (and during the day) and Town Hall is not particularly close to any residential properties. Town Hall is also not the 930 Club, The Black Cat, or even Saloun, which is a pretty good spot down on M Street. What Town Hall is, is basically a pretty mellow, more than slightly preppy place where you can drink a beer, eat some solid chicken wings, and watch some football on Sunday. Their menu extends beyond standard bar food, but I personally haven't ventured passed the sandwich section. In my experience, even when it is crowded on the inside, absolutely no noise spills out onto the sidewalk. Apparently, the owners would like to extend their liquor license to a time later than they are currently permitted. I can see no earthly reason that this would present a problem for anybody.

By chance, last winter I happened to be at the ANC meeting at which the guys who own Town Hall introduced themselves and presented their plans. The ANC members were not thrilled. They questioned them about noise (which is a non-factor) and the general potential rowdiness of their future establishment. Now, according the neighborhood newsletter, The Glover Park Gazzette, somebody at the last Glover Park Citizens Association has "made a motion" to formally oppose the extention of Town Hall's liquor license. To channel EPMD, I've got a message for the GPCA: "You gots to chill." Town Hall is a pretty tame scene, all things considered. There was obviously demand for another bar in the neighborhood as both Bourbon (honestly, my neighborhood bar of choice) and Town Hall draw reasonable crowds. The ANC and GPCA should not do the knee-jerk thing and automatically decide to obstruct the progress of a new business where people go to socialize in Glover Park. Also, I'd seriously hope that whoever considers extending Town Hall's liquor license understands how small the active membership is of each of these groups. Now, I know that decisions are made by those who show up, and apathy doesn't deserve to be rewarded, but in this case the neighsayers are such a small group that it warrants mentioning.

Glover Park is a pretty chilled out, tree-lined, beautiful neighborhood. It'll stay that way even if bars are permitted to stay open late enough to be competitive. Young people and families can easily co-exist, and the essence of the neighborhood is hardly under fire. It's a shame that the owners of Town Hall need to walk on such eggshells with some people. If anything, people ought to welcome the new place as, perhaps, the thing that will finally spur some momentum into the other vacant store fronts down at the far end of the Wisconsin Avenue strip. New businesses would be welcome, and Glover Park would remain a quiet residential enclave.

More Sam Brooks City Council Action

Well, I suppose you've hit the big-time with a DCist interview. Important factors: his biggest issue is education and he likes to eat at Rocklands. Both of those things are enough to make me want to give this guy the benefit of the doubt. Listing the Cactus Cantina as his favorite DC bar is a bit suspect, but they do make good huevos rancheros and seem about as good as you'll find for a giant Mexan food factory. For Ward 3 Mexican though, my allegiance is sworn to Margaritas, a bit farther south on Wisconsin Avenue, near the Whole Foods.

Like Cleaning the Augean Stables

No less a Herculean endeavor than having a coffee at every single Starbucks in Washington, DC.

I wouldn't wish such a task upon anyone, but I applaud Jacinda and Jerry for their pluck.

Hybrids ARE the answer

Look, I realize that John Tierney has his eye on traffic congestion rather than global warming when he recommends High-Occupancy Toll lanes instead of free car-pool lanes, but I have to take huge issue with one of his points:

In Virginia, where they've been allowed for years in the car pool lanes, the lanes have become so clogged that an advisory committee has repeatedly recommended their banishment. The same problem will occur in California, where some of the car pool lanes were congested even without hybrids.

As traffic slows down, there will be more idling cars burning more gas and emitting more pollution, but politicians will be reluctant to offend hybrid owners by revoking their privilege. So it will be harder than ever to make the one change proven to speed up traffic and help the environment: convert the car pool lanes into what engineers call high-occupancy toll lanes.

What Tierney seems to forget is that hybrids produce close to zero emissions in stop and go traffic (their electronic motors capture enough energy from braking for the trivial acceleration the cars need in such situations).  So if, as he fears, an increasing number of hybrids mean more stop-and-go traffic, at the very least, our air will be cleaner and our climate will not warm as quickly. 

Speechifying on the Street

Over on Slate, Sam Anderson points to an amazingly entertaining website: Overheard in New York. Overall, he is very taken with the whole project, wherein City-dwellers email in things that they overhear passersby say in public areas around New York. But he does have one David Byrne-esque concern:

It's probably just an irony implicit to New York conversation, and one that's accelerated by a site like Overheard. The city's ubiquitous audience creates a feedback loop: People make their conversation overhearable (clever, aphoristic, filmic, full of punch lines) because they know it will be overheard. In this way, all conversation is overheard in advance. It won't be long before we're all walking around talking, not in movie dialogue, but like quotes from Overheard in New York, hoping that someone's listening.

It's difficult to track how much people adapt linguistically to their surroundings and how they pick up mannerisms without realizing it. Either way, scroll through the site. There are some serious gems. Because it lies at the intersection of politics and the media (and it will soon get bumped off the front page and into the archives), I'll leave you with this:

Newspaper guy: Only in the Post! Pictures of Pataki crying like a pussy!

--34th & 7th

Most of the items on the website are pieces of conversations, which are better. This example is particularly harsh, but also an aggressive sales pitch for a tabloid.

"Honey, go save us some seats. I'll be right in with the Chardonnay"

Heard anyone say this in the theater lobby before Wedding Crashers? Apparently, or at least so reports the New York Times, this will become increasingly commonplace. It's been creeping along slowly for a while. You've probably noticed the new snack offerings at movie theaters in recent years. Chicken Fingers. Fried Dough. I used to think nachos were an extravagance.

A little over a month ago I went to go see Rize at a local AMC theater only to find out that I was actually at "Club Cinema." The downside: tickets were $12. The upside: I could bring a Jack and Coke into the theater with me for the movie.

This all seems kind of similar to the "Disco Bowling" phenomenon. It's nearly impossible to find a standard, good old bowling alley anymore. However, whereas bowling is clearly not as much of a cultural centerpiece as it once was for American teenagers, movies--despite much reported declining ticket sales--don't seem to be in serious jeopardy. I mean, people are buying DVDs in record numbers. I don't think fried chicken (or anything that makes the theater reek of anything other than popcorn) is the answer. Movies are still important to people. But nobody should mistake going to a movie for an up-market evening out. To bring people back to theaters, perhaps management should try a more obvious approach: putting ticket prices back under $10.

I don't really want to belabor this point, but this comparison is too funny to pass up.

With mild apprehension of drawing the collective ire of my city of residence, I feel it's high time to present a quick side by side comparison of the 50 most beautiful people in New York (according to New York Magazine) with the 50 most beautiful people on Capitol Hill (according to The Hill).

Is this a fair comparison? Of course not. DC brought a knife to this gunfight. And fought with its other hand tied behind its back. New York is way bigger, and filled with many more things that seem to attract the fairer among us. Now, I'm not one to jump on top of the pile or gang tackle for no reason after the play is over, and the DC list has already been closely examined in several places, but the side by side comparison seemed too good to pass up. Obviously neither list is definitive, but each sheds light on how its publication sees the city it covers.

"Hey, lets grab a drink at Local Ronald Reagan!"

If this crazy idea went through, would they rename the bars?

Just one more reason why the district could really, really use a vote in Congress.