In general, the proposals are regarding additional authority, resources, and data from city government, as well as a provision for a stricter ethics code. Several speak to specific ways to address one of my proposals, “enforcing greater transparency and consistency in ANC operations,” although in general they assume transparency is an issue with the city government, and should be addressed with specific disclosure requirements. I argue reforms should enhance transparency by both the city and the local commission, something that may not apply as much more well-run commissions like 6A with its detailed website and good communications.

Lastly David provided some additional recommendations (letters A-D below) that would essentially create additional statutory authority for ANCs. However, none of the recommendations address my remaining three areas of possible reform from my original post: (1) Modify the structure of Single Member Districts, (3) Reduce the number of ANCs or enlarge SMD sizes, and (4) Term Limits for ANC Commissioners.

As is with structural reforms for any type of electoral body, no matter how needed reforms of this type rarely arise from within the membership, elected as they are under the prevailing rules. I maintain this type of more fundamental reform — outside of usual lawyerly quibbling about the DC Code — is necessary.

Click to read all of the proposed reforms.

====================================

Commissioners,

Here is a package of proposed Council actions from Advisory Neighborhood Commission 6A that will strengthen the ANCs. It’s called the “Enhancing Neighborhood Voices Act of 2008″.

Below is a summary of the provisions. They are based on our experience, the recommendations of experienced Commissioners from other ANCs, and from City and Council staff. We have tried to offer only those amendments that have a reasonable chance of adoption by the Council. We omitted a number of amendments we would prefer to have included because it seemed possible they might hurt the chances of the whole package being adopted by the City Council.

The ethics proposals in point 6 are forceful. The provisions are stricter than the ethical code which Councilmembers are required to meet. This we feel is a good thing. There should be no doubt that the Commissioners’ actions are only for the good of their constituents, that they seek nothing for themselves.

The final amendment, for increased funds for the ANCs, is intended to open a debate about how to provide sufficient money to help us become more effective.

We believe these are a reasonable set of tools to help us better represent our constituents. Please join us by asking your Councilmember, Council Chair Vincent Gray, and the at-large Members to sponsor and vote for this package.

David Holmes for ANC 6A
Commissioner 6A03
holmes6a3 at gmail.com

The provisions:

1) add an attorney within the Office of Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (OANC) dedicated to assisting ANCs with appearances and appeals before the Board of Zoning Adjustment and the Zoning Commission.
ANC Commissioners are volunteers. Though their expertise is across many occupations and interests, almost without exception they are not formally trained in zoning law. Zoning requires specialized knowledge of hearing procedure and appeal rules as well as expertise in zoning language and history. In this arena, Commissioners go into battle against $200-800/hour attorneys. We need non-partisan, knowledgeable legal help that is dedicated to the interests of our neighborhoods. It may be that the staff will have to help ANCs on both sides of a zoning issue – and that’s fine.

Staff working out of the Office of the Attorney General would be subject to reassignment and to alternate tasking by the AG, and would likely have other duties to perform concurrently. Thus, ANC responsibilities would surely slip on a hierarchy of responsibilities. Only an attorney operating independently of other City agencies and departments would be useful to us in all circumstances. Their focus would be on the needs of the ANCs, and their loyalties would be to the ANCs, not to any city department that might be inconvenienced or embarrassed by ANC requests or proposed action.

2) Add an additional staff person within the OANC to advise and assist ANCs on the procedures of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, the Department of Public Works, the Department of Transportation, and others. This staff person would become an objective resource for the ANCs.
The Board has specialized procedures, and many Commissioners lack enough knowledge to effectively represent their constituents. The DCRA, DPW, and DDoT are the largest of the City’s rulemaking and enforcing agencies. Their divisions and bureaucracies are vast, and their rules and regulations seem to go on forever. Commissions need help identifying the appropriate person or rule to help with a community problem.

3) Require the provision of interpretive services, for both foreign and sign language, on an as-needed basis to ANCs. This responsibility should be vested in the ANC Office. The City shall either negotiate set low rates or provide interpreters from the City’s payroll. (Adopted)
Residents and citizens who are unable to converse fluently in English or in spoken language should not be kept from participation in civic life. Some ANCs have particularly concentrated populations of non-English speakers or of the deaf. The ANCs are the closest elected body to the citizens of this City, and need to be able to hear from all of their constituents. The requirements of the ADA are not being met by the City, and there is insufficient funding provided to ANCs to hire interpreters at commercial rates.

4) Clarify that a Commission may provide reimbursement to Commissioners for purchases made with credit cards. (Adopted)

5) Ensure that no funds shall be expended for office equipment away from the Commission office, whether provided for the use of Commissioners, committee chairs, officers, or staff. Exceptions may be sought through a ruling by the OANC, based upon publicly announced criteria.
This is an obvious source of misappropriation of City funds. Any policy for equipment use away from Commission offices shall be set by written regulation and explicit permission obtained from the OANC. This proposal is intended to answer the criticism that some commissioners have taken advantage of their position of public trust to divert monies and equipment to themselves or to organizations they either control or in which they have a financial interest.

6) Prohibit the acceptance of monies, services, or of any thing of value by any Commissioner (or his or her family or family-owned company or partnership) from any person, company, partnership, or corporation with business before the Commission, either currently or within one year (before or after) of Commission action affecting that person, company, partnership, or corporation. Prohibit membership on the Commissions of any person who has been convicted of a crime that betrays the public trust (embezzlement, misappropriation of funds, fraud, false statements). Those who have committed other types of crimes, not otherwise barred from public office or from voting, remain eligible. This prohibition shall be printed on the ANC candidate filing form provided by the Board of Election and Ethics.
As in #5 above, this proposal is intended to answer the criticism that commissioners have taken advantage of their ability to affect the issuance of permits, licenses, and zoning matters for financial and other rewards. We have all read stories of errant commissioners in the past few election cycles. While there are related provisions in law, this language clarifies ANC financial prohibitions and responsibilities. In addition, persons found guilty of crimes that betray the public trust should not serve as Commissioners. This issue is frequently mentioned as a reason that greater faith and more funds are not given to the ANCs by the City Council.

7) At the request of an ANC, the City shall provide office space in government buildings or by leasing appropriate space. In addition, the City should provide office furniture and equipment for an ANC office. At its choice, an ANC may decline to use these City-provided services.
The costs for the lease should be covered by the Office of Property Management (OPM), with their budget adjusted accordingly. The OPM has the staff and knowledge with which it provides leased space for City agencies — adding ANCs to the list should not overburden the office. It will alleviate the need for inexperienced Commissions to negotiate leases. OPM should provide office furniture and equipment to ANCs, as it does for every other city agency. The OPM has the procurement experts and pre-negotiated prices to ensure that DC tax dollars are spent wisely and in accordance with the law.

The ANCs need a location for interaction with constituents, for the storage of files and office equipment, and for people to have access to public documents. The City has made inadequate efforts to locate appropriate offices in City-owned facilities. The current allocation of $600/month towards the cost of a lease is laughably small. The City already employs experts to provide office equipment at contracted prices and with service maintenance contracts, and the ANCs should be able to use these expert services. Basic office equipment should be provided by the City. It may well be that some ANCs will prefer not to take advantage of this provision. An ANC must adopt a motion to request this assistance.

8) Staff shall be made available to ANCs (20 hours a week). ANCs should be able to use the same personnel services that other DC agencies employ to hire staff assistants. At a minimum, ANCs should be able to use the city personnel, accounting, and management systems to hire staff and ensure the payment of income and Social Security tax withholdings. At its choice, an ANC may decline to use these City-provided services.
One of the consistent failures noted by the DC Auditor is the inability of ANCs to properly account for taxes and benefits for staff they hire. Use of the Office of Personnel (OP) will reduce or eliminate these problems. ANCs should have the ability to hire their own staff, but be able to use OP services.

Commissioners serve as unpaid volunteers, with little time during the workday to be available to their constituents or for gathering information. Having staff to answer phone calls, file appeals, pick up documents and packages, and even attend key agency meetings during the day would greatly improve the effectiveness of ANCs.

9) Provide an adjudicated appeal mechanism for decisions made by City agencies; appeals may be heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
For example, there is no current appeal of any ruling by the Auditor or the Board of Election and Ethics. Only by going to the Courts, the Mayor, or the Council can the decisions of several other agencies be appealed. However, an issue that may be vital to a particular neighborhood may be of little interest or too time-consuming for the Council or the Mayor.

10) Clarify the ability of an ANC to directly petition the Zoning Commission for zoning amendments, by amending the DCMR as follows: In DC Official Code, Title 11 102.2, insert “the Advisory Neighborhood Commissions” as (f); and re-number the current language… “Any other department of the District or federal government”… as (g).

11) Within 10 days of their first notification of the Office of Planning, developers seeking a Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall provide the ANC in which the project is to be located, and any other ANC within two hundred feet of the proposed PUD’s lot, written notice of their intention to build. This notice shall be conveyed to the ANC’s address of record, along with renderings of the project; a statement of special exceptions and variances to be requested; the names, addresses, and phone numbers of the project managers and legal counsel; and a listing of proposed community amenities. This provision should be placed in both the ANC law and the zoning code.
This provision will ensure that ANCs receive appropriate notice for major developments in and adjacent to each Commission. There is now no requirement in law for advance notice. Currently we depend on the goodwill of the Office of Planning. A requirement imposed upon the developer, rather than the Office of Planning or the Office of Zoning, ensures adequate time for ANC consideration of community impact and of proposed community benefits. This requirement efficiently provides us with the names and contact information of the developer and the project’s counsel. It also alerts the ANCs to zoning exceptions and variances that will be sought by the developer. The ANCs along those transportation corridors now beginning intense development need all the tools that can be provided to enhance and protect their communities.

12) Require 30-day notice to the local ANC, or any ANC located within 200 feet of a proposed site, of any consideration by the Public Charter School Board (PCSB) of a possible location of a new charter school or of the expansion of an existing charter school.
Only in the last year has the PCSB provided ANC notice of proposed school sites. Although the Office of the Attorney General has ruled that written notice must be provided, it currently comes after the siting process is almost completed. Public schools, other than charters, must go through an extensive public process before a school building can be located in a neighborhood. The ANC, community groups, the Councilmember, and others have the opportunity to analyze the proposed site for traffic safety, proximity to dwellings, adequate playgrounds, sufficient parking, and whether there is enough room for the school and the anticipated number of students. This is not the case for the location of charter schools. Commissions, for example, have complained that too many schools have been sited in the same area; that there has been no thought given to how parents can drop off and pick up students at charter sites on busy commercial streets. At best, ANCs receive 10 days notice of the only PCSB vote on the final location. In addition, the PCSB itself does no examination of the site or of the building – they rely only on the DCRA certificate of occupancy. This amendment offers ANCs time to analyze the site, consult the neighbors, offer advice to the PCSB, and prepare for public testimony.

13) Allow ANCs to proceed in civil suits against those who are harming the ANC or fail to perform promised actions, and remove prohibitions against enjoining City agencies when they take action without waiting for the expiration of the ANC 30-day comment period. The ANC may originate or be a party to the suit.
This envisions use of a hired or pro bono attorney to sue on behalf of the ANC. Many times actions are promised by those seeking ANC approval for zoning, public space, beverage licenses, or economic development. This allows compulsion of those who fail to perform promised actions. Failure to give ANCs the full 30-day period to respond negates the ANCs’ “great weight”.

14) Provide timely, free access to DC government documents and data.
The DC Code 1-309.10(i)(1) is amended by striking the language following the word “data”, and inserting a comma: DC Code 1-309.10(i)(1) Each Commission shall have access to District government officials and to all District government official documents and public data pursuant to § 2-531 et seq. that are material to the exercise of its development of recommendations to the District government.

The Code is further amended by adding after the word “data” at DC Code 1-309.10(i)(1): “, provided that no fee shall be charged a Commission when requesting documents or data pursuant to this section.”; And the following new language shall be added after the period: “Commission requests shall be given immediate priority.” The new language of DC Code 1-309.10(i)(1) shall then read: “DC Code 1-309.10(i)(1) Each Commission shall have access to District government officials and to all District government official documents and public data, provided that no fee shall be charged a Commission when requesting documents or data pursuant to this section. Commission requests shall be given immediate priority.”

ANC access to government documents is currently greatly hindered because: 1) some departments attempt to impose FOIA requirements; 2) several agencies impose charges on material provided; and 3) document and data requests go to the back of the line. DCRA, in particular, fails to respond in a timely fashion to ANC requests. We understand that they and other agencies are deluged with requests for information and documents. Nonetheless, the ANC law reads… “Each Advisory Neighborhood Commission (“Commission”) may advise the Council of the District of Columbia, the Mayor and each executive agency, and all independent agencies, boards and commissions of the government of the District of Columbia with respect to all proposed matters of District government policy including, but not limited to, decisions regarding planning, streets, recreation, social services programs, education, health, safety, budget, and sanitation which affect that Commission area.” Without timely access to documents, data, and officials, the ANC is greatly handicapped in the performance of its mandated functions. In summary, this proposed language clarifies access, eliminates the charges that some DC agencies have imposed, and provides a priority for ANC requests for information.

15) Adequately fund the ANCs, preferably at the level adopted in the original authorizing legislation.
This language is intended to request that the Council raise the current funding level. The original amount of money available to the ANC in the 1976 Congressional authorizing legislation was 1 cent of each $100 of property valuation. This would be about twice the current amount, according to Gottlieb Simon of the ANC Office. As things now stand, many ANCs don’t get enough money to hire or even share a staff person or to open an ANC office in the high rent areas. Congress left the funding for the ANCs within the jurisdiction of the City Council, although the original funding level required no annual appropriation, the amount then being fixed by Congress. Both Congress and the City Council have since reduced annual allocations. When a member of Congress failed to obtain ANC support for his proposed home modifications before the BZA, the DC Appropriations bill mysteriously zeroed out the ANC funds for that year. In FY94, the ANC allocation was $1,172,000. In FY95, in a fit of cost-cutting, the Council reduced that amount to $624,000. We have crept up over $800,000 since that time. The ANCs have been a football to be kicked around when the Council feels cuts are needed, but sometimes the cut just reflects a Councilmember’s greater interest in a particular project. One year a Council Chair took the entire ANC budget to fund a project dear to his heart. It is time to ask for something better. If we are to represent the voices and needs of our constituents, we need better tools and better funding. The original level of ANC funding seems to be the appropriate starting point, since that formula was the largest amount the ANCs have ever received.

Not adopted by ANC 6A for inclusion in its suggested improvements but enthusiastically supported by several Commissioners from around the City were the proposed amendments below. They are much more controversial.

Other amendments which, after preliminary discussion, did not come to a vote:

A. Stop the provision of the annual allocation to any ANC whose bank account totals exceed 250% of the annual allocation. These funds shall revert to the Office of the ANCs. The provisions of this section become effective 18 months from the date of enactment. An ANC may obtain a waiver of the requirements of this act by a ruling of the ANC Office, based upon publicly announced criteria, e. g., anticipated future rental expenses.
We are reliably informed that this is a principal reason that ANC funding levels have not been raised. While most ANCs annually spend all of their funds on Commission business and grants, others have amassed multiples of their annual allocation. Councilmembers have asked why ANCs need more money when some ANCs simply accumulate their City-provided funds.

B. Require DCRA to give notification to ANCs of any action taken with respect to either an existing Certificate of Occupancy, or the issuance of a C of O to a new structure or property. This notice shall be provided biweekly both in writing and electronically.

C. Require HPRB to give notification to ANCs of pending actions, and of all actions recently taken, relating to properties and structures within each ANC. This notice shall be provided biweekly both in writing and electronically.

D. 1. In proceedings by the Zoning Commission, ABRA, the Historic Preservation Office, the Board of Zoning Adjustment, and in any government action in which the Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANC) are by law granted “great weight”, the opinion of the ANC shall be determinative unless 1) there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary or 2) the ANC can be shown clearly to misunderstand the underlying law or regulation.
If the additional Office of Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (OANC) staff are provided, then point 2 should be changed to “if the OANC states in writing that an ANC’s position conforms to District law and regulation, then the board, commission, or agency must meet the burden of proof to decide to the contrary.” All too often the ANCs’ “great weight” is minimized by the City’s regulatory bodies. As long as the requirements of law and regulation are met, it is appropriate to give determinative power to the elected body most closely in contact with the citizenry. The use of the phrase “clear and convincing evidence to the contrary” effectively mandates the great weight of the Commissions. Because this is a considerable expansion of the reach of ANC powers, this provision should not be enacted without adoption of the ANC ethics reforms to be found elsewhere in this package.

Or (alternate version)

D. 2. In proceedings of the Zoning Commission, Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration, the Historic Preservation Office, the Board of Zoning Adjustment, and in any government action in which the Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANC) are by law granted “great weight”, there shall exist a refutable presumption that the position of the ANC is correct.
If the additional Office of Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (OANC) staff are provided, then add: “if the OANC states in writing that an ANC’s position conforms to District law and regulation, then the board, commission, or agency must meet the burden of proof to decide to the contrary.”

E. ANCs shall be permitted to initiate legal actions in the courts: DC Official Code § 1-309.10 (g) – (Advisory Neighborhood Commissions-Duties and responsibilities; notice; great weight; access to documents; reports; contribution) which reads: “The Commission shall not have the power to initiate a legal action in the courts of the District of Columbia or in the federal courts, provided that this limitation does not apply to or prohibit any Commissioner from bringing suit as a citizen” is amended as follows: DC Official Code § 1-309.10 (g) is repealed.

Sources: ANC 6A commissioner David Holmes, ANC 6A

The ANC system was created in 1976 as part of the D.C. Home Rule Charter. In order to provide a means for local engagement and participation in public policy, the city established 37 commissions across the city, each representing a portion of a ward. (The names are the ward number followed by a letter, such as 1C, 2A, etc.) Each commission is composed of people elected from Single-Member Districts (SMDs) of approximately 2,000 people. Thus, across the city every resident is represented by exactly one ANC and one of the 270 commissioners. This map, showing the ANC and SMDs of the Mid City neighborhoods of U Street, Adams Morgan, and Columbia Heights, illustrates the dense geography of the ANC system.

I was reminded of the topic when a friend sent me this blog post about the latest ANC scandal, about an ANC commissioner and his partner apparently trying to obstruct the renewal of a liquor license for two popular restaurants. Indeed, the area of liquor licenses is often an area of intense conflict. Local residents oppose loud, noisy bars open late, and the attendees of loud, noisy bars open late aren’t a particularly organized constituency. The result is (unknown to most D.C. residents) that some neighborhoods (specifically, Dupont Circle, Georgetown, Glover Park, and Adams Morgan), have moratoriums in effect for new liquor licenses. The effect of the limited supply is the existing bars are even louder and busier, but that’s an issue for another day.

Before describing potential reforms I think it should note that most ANCs function relatively well most of the time. They are groups of citizens, serving unpaid, who have regular meetings to discuss issues of neighborhood concern. It’s important to note the critical role the ANCs create in providing a forum for neighborhood-level discussion, and to allow city government a formal way to communicate with local residents about proposed developments and policies. In fact, the intense emotion surrounding some ANC races speaks to the important role they provide. Although some throw up their hands and call for them to be abolished, I believe they play an important role and should continue to exist in some form.

Since no political system is perfect, this post serves to discuss some potential improvements. Here are too general categories of criticism.

First, too often ANCs are not representative. As a result, ANCs disproportionately represent the views of older, more affluent property owners. The views of the significant renter population in many neighborhoods is limited in many ANCs. Additionally, because of these biases the views of all may not be represented. In Adams Morgan, 1C is all white despite the huge diversity of the neighborhood. (See members today). In other neighborhoods, the patterns are different by no less troubling, with ANC commissioners not representing every facet of the community.

Second, ANCs are highly varied in their operations. The ANCs are independent, receiving only a small amount of support from city government. As a result, the quality of their websites, publications, location and openness of the meetings, and other aspects of operations varies widely, resulting in frustration and making them susceptible to manipulation.

Partly responding to these criticisms, below are four possible avenues of reform:

1. Modify the structure of Single Member Districts. The SMDs ensure every resident exactly one ANC commissioner to report to, however they suffer the same problem of any geography-based electoral system: diffuse interests are often not represented. (renters, immigrant populations, etc.) For this reason many city councils, including D.C., have at-large seats. The ANC boundaries could remain the same and all commissioners could be elected at-large within the ANC. Or, a compromise option, each ANC could have one at-large commissioner in addition to those elected from SMDs. The number of SMDs could be reduced, or the total number of commissioners in each ANC increased by one.

2. City government should enforce greater transparency and consistency in operations. The city could mandate the ANCs report their budgets, agendas, and other documents to a central repository. Access to these documents is often uneven. ANCs could be provided access to a system to allow them to set up a website through city resources. The ANC office in general takes a very hands-off approach, which is understandable given limited resources. However, a more active ANC office could standardize the operations of each without threatening their autonomy.

3. Reduce the number of ANCs or enlarge SMD sizes. Although some neighborhoods enjoy active ANCs, others are less active and successful. Each ward contains 4 to 6 of the groups, perhaps the total number should be reduced and the corresponding SMDs enlarged. Currently many neighborhood civic organizations and ANCs cover similar areas, making the ANCs slightly larger would reduce this apparent redundancy. Having fewer ANCs might also increase the quality of their participation in public policy as it would cut down on the number of meetings necessary to reach every neighborhood in the city. It would, however, dilute the power of individual votes and reduce the number of elected commissioners.

4. Term Limits for ANC Commissioners. In Shaw, and other ANCs throughout the city, ANC commissioners can be very long-served, with mixed effects. Although they can be trusted voices and amass deep historical knowledge, long-serving ANC commissioners may prevent others from getting involved. The same arguments for and against term limits for any representative seat applies. Commissioners could have term limits, something fairly long but enough to ensure some turnover, perhaps 5-10 years.

These are just some tentative proposals based on my limited knowledge and experience with the system. Additional viewpoints are welcome. ANCs should be recognized as a valuable D.C. institution that is become a critical part of the local political life. However, like any political system their structure and operations need not remain static and fixed.

Note on boundary maps: The D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics has this gallery of maps of the district boundaries. However, I think they are inferior to an older series that has been removed. For example, the new maps don’t contain labels for all the SMDs. Luckily, these maps are preserved in the Internet Archive here. For the technically inclined, KML and ESRI Shapefile versions are available from the city here.

From the point of view of pedestrians, there’s not much to like about brick sidewalks. When wet they’re often slippery. Bricks easily become uneven or loose due to tree roots or uneven soil, complicating shoveling and leading to tripping. The uneven surface can be treacherous for bikers, strollers, or the impaired. Some even point out they can easily become projectiles in the hands of miscreants. Yet brick remains a common material throughout many cities. Boston’s tourist meccas, Faneuil Hall’s plazas, Downtown Crossing’s streets, and even the Freedom Trail itself are made from brick. In Washington, D.C., miles of new brick sidewalks have been installed in the past few years in some of the city’s busiest pedestrian corridors.

Not everyone agrees with the brick critics. Commenting on a neighborhood newspaper’s story, titled “bricks bring worries for some pedestrians,” the Washington City Paper‘s sharp-tongued editor Erik Wemple rejects the complaints of a scooter-bound disability rights advocate quoted in the story and declares, “Brick sidewalks are one of the greatest ever streetscape accomplishments of the District government.” He neglects to mention that for recent streetscape projects, city contractors lay bricks on top of a solid pored slab of concrete, essentially building two complete sidewalk surfaces on top of each other. This approach combines the stability of cement with the aesthetics of brick, perhaps by sacrificing cost. (Government waste is another City Paper favorite topic)

Arguing they save money, trees, help recycle automobile tires, and create a superior walking surface, one California company is marketing rubber sidewalks. (Illustrated above) Despite a flurry of interest in 2006 (including here in Boston), the concept doesn’t have seemed to catch on in a big way, with local installations limited to a smattering across the country. The company’s own comparison chart may suggest the reason: it costs over $19 a square foot, versus an estimated $15 for concrete or $5-$8 for asphalt. I suspect other reasons are to blame, including the slow pace of change by municipal officials that make material decisions. The perceived pertinence and durability of cement may trump the actual durability, to say nothing about the demand for bricks based solely on aesthetics. Just the term “rubber sidewalk” conjures up images of a tactile, bouncy surface inappropriate for a city street.

The Federal Highway Administration’s report on designing sidewalks and trails orders sidewalk surfaces should be slip resistant under dry conditions (illustrated by this diagram), concluding “most asphalt and concrete surfaces are fairly slip resistant.” A Canadian report (Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Sidewalk Design, Construction and Maintenance) advises municipalities:

In choosing the material for the sidewalk, consideration should also be given to materials that are non-slip and provide adequate drainage, as well as the requirements of users with strollers, inline skates and also the visually and mobility impaired.

The report doesn’t even mention brick, but includes this list of factors for material selection conspicuously omitting safety: life cycle cost (initial construction cost, maintenance cost), durability, service life, location, maintenance, color (concrete reflects more light), vandalism during curing (pre-cast pavers), runoff potential. Just about the only people I can find considering safety in a serious way is the website of a odd advocacy group based in Arlington, Virginia, who complain about the rough surfaces create by bricks, cobblestones, course aggregate, and other materials.

Slippery sidewalks have become a problem, sparking legal action in that very pedestrian city, New York. A 1981 story in the New York Times describes how “new” materials like travertine and terazzo were slippery and resulting in lawsuits from people who fell on them breaking bones and suffering other serious injuries. According to the story, lawyers “in negligence suits, such cases are on the rise as a result of the wider use of a variety of materials for sidewalks to obtain a more esthetic effect than concrete provides.” A “noted” negligence attorney quoted in the story describes how he usually sues the property owner, not the architect or city, for putting down a defective sidewalk, noting adding the city to lawsuits “complicates” them.

With so many complex factors influencing sidewalk materials floating around, we should add the factor of local control. During a walking tour of Washington, D.C.’s H Street neighborhood last year, our guide told us how the most important factor in sidewalk materials was how well it resisted unsightly stains caused by chewing gum. They opted for a cement aggregate, rather than a plain concrete face or brick. Like in many issues, given the uncertain ethical calculus for sidewalks (how should professionals weigh aesthetics, cost, safety, vandalism potential, tree health effects, etc?) city planners defer to the preferences of active local residents. And if those who prefer a higher friction coefficient on wet days aren’t present, so be it.

In Harvard Square near where I witnessed the fall this fall, another person fell in October and was transported to the hospital for stitches. Maryan Amaral, a wheelchair user who frequents the area and witnessed the accident, convinced the City of Cambridge to re-build the sidewalk and crosswalk on the street after collecting 125 signatures on a petition. Happy with the new crosswalk ramps, she’s concerned about the material the city chose, however, pointing out that brick sidewalks often come loose. A lone comment on the online version of the news article about the case begs, “Please, let’s get rid of the brick sidewalks. I know some like their historic charm, but they’re just terrible in the ice and snow, both because they’re difficult to clear and because they tend ice over more readily than concrete. They’re also terrible for the handicapped.” Maybe the next petition will take up the issue.

> Federal Highway Administration: Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access
> Cambridge Chronicle: Complaint Triggers Appian Way Rehab
> Book: Slip and Fall Prevention

Thanks to my friend Katie Mencarini with the Toole Design Group for help doing research for this post. Photos from Flickr users Lodigs and Supergiball

Last night, thousands of people celebrated the election of Barack Obama at the very same intersection and in streets throughout the city. No doubt similar spontanious celebrations erupted in thousands of cities across the nation.

This year D.C. voted 92.9% for Barack Obama. In 2004, the city voted 89.2% for John Kerry, and roughly 85% for Al Gore in 2000 and Bill Clinton in 1996 and 1992.

See also Remembering 1968 and Understanding the 1960′s “Civil Disorders’

Since 1990, the Black share of the D.C. population has fallen 11.2%. That decline was made up by increases in four other categories: White (6.2%), Asian (1.2%), other (2.2%), and two or more races (1.6%). The U.S. Census Bureau allowed respondents to select multiple races for the first time in 2000, and asks separate questions for race and ethnicity. Over the same time period, the percent reporting Hispanic ethnicity has increased 2.9%.

Here is the Census data, with projections for 2010 and 2014 calculated from the trends since 2000 only:

My projection finds the Hispanic population relatively slowly growing. But unlike the Black and White population, this group may be subject to unique external influences such as immigration policy and global economic patterns that may reduce the validity of this projection.

A couple comments about these numbers. First, they show relatively gradual and ongoing demographic shifts, not abrupt change that most seem to assume is happening. Despite massive investments in a tiny majority of the city’s neighborhoods, D.C. only recently stabilized its population, let alone began to add significant population. Second, since 1990 the city has lost 77,958 Blacks but only gained 30,665 Whites. Collectively, the groups other race, two or more races, and Asian gained almost as many over the same period, 28,979. Overall, from 1990 to 2007 the city shrank by 18,608 people. The declining Black majority thus has three main causes: Black flight, growing White population, AND growing other racial categories.

Here’s the full table, including 2010 projections based on patterns since 2000:

	1990	2000	2006	2007	2010
Black	399,604	343,312	322,105	321,646	310,613
White	179,667	176,101	200,395	210,332	221,657
American Indian	1,466	1,713	1,903	1,172	1,373
Asian	11,214	15,189	19,827	18,066	20,739
Other Race	14,949	21,950	28,127	27,591	30,898
Two Or More	0	13,446	8,970	9,485	10,833

Obviously, when the shift occurs it will have profound effects on the city. While I will refrain from making a judgment about what it will mean overall, I hope the analysis above shows it’s not primarily caused by any one factor, but several.

> NYTimes: “Washington’s Black Majority is Shrinking”
> W. Post: “D.C. May Be Losing Status As a Majority-Black City”

In a splashy cover story this week, the quarterly magazine sent to thousands of local business leaders this week considers which Washington, D.C. neighborhoods will be the next “hot spots.”

The story appears in OnSite, a quarterly glossy magazine sent to subscribers of the Washington Business Journal. With a password-only website, the story’s only readers will be the 16,600+ subscribers who pay over $100 a year to receive the weekly newspaper.

Featuring incendiary graphics (above) and a map with the neighborhood identified with crosshairs, the article will do little to sooth the concerns of activists fearful their neighborhoods will be targets for new development with or without their input. Surprisingly, only 4 of the 13 are within the boundary of D.C., a sign of how much investment has happened in District neighborhoods and the barriers to additional development. In addition to the neighborhoods shown on the map below, the magazine additionally identified Gaithersburg and Laurel in Maryland and Occoquan in Virginia.

The article proposes a number of variables to predict where people “want to live, work and hang out.” They are: accessible to roads, near Metro or other rail, near water or riverfront, geographically distinctive, near parks and recreation, near anchor or stadium, upward economic capacity, arts uses, main gathering place, historical features, interesting architecture, and pedestrian oriented.

The most surprising locations may be Landover (picked due to the ongoing Landover Gateway planning effort), Greenbelt (which we covered on Rethink College Park), and Prince William County’s Occoquan.

Occoquan? Despite being over 20 miles from Washington, OnSite thinks the tiny historic town’s proximity to to I-95, several VRE stations, Fort Belvoir and Quantico bases, nearby “smart-growth style developments,” and attractive waterfront will make it a hotspot for growth.

What do you think of their picks? What places — or factors — are missing from the analysis?

According to the program press release, “Plans to further expand the program are currently under way. DDOT is planning to place additional stations in other neighborhoods in spherical paths working towards the outer parts of the city.” It occurs to me a logical place to expand the system would be at Metro stations, something they already seem to be doing with the downtown locations.

Washington has no federally licensed gun stores, so nowhere in the city can residents buy a handgun legally. Under federal law, buying one in neighboring Maryland or Virginia isn’t an option either. If gun dealers sell a firearm to a nonresident, they have to ship it to a licensed dealer in the purchaser’s home state, which then conducts the relevant background checks. “Without a dealer, there’s no place to ship the gun to,” said Mike Campbell, a spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

It is unlikely that Washington will get any new dealers, either. Federal licensing requirements mandate that would-be dealers meet local guidelines and zoning ordinances. Representatives of each of the district’s eight council wards said they would vigorously oppose a gun shop in their area. They also said discussions had already begun over which regulations they might use to keep one from opening.

This approach has been used successfully elsewhere – as of 2005 Minneapolis only had one store, and Washington has already largely eradicated nude strip clubs through onerous zoning requirements:

While the license allows an owner to open a club with nude dancing anywhere in the city that has commercial zoning, a club must sit at least 600 feet away from any schools, community centers and housing. Community members can protest the opening of such a club, and it must get approval from the District’s Alcoholic Beverage Control Board.

The only problem? As of now, D.C. Zoning Code says nothing about gun shops. Another issue to throw into the mix over in the D.C. zoning update …

Washington, D.C. needs to get serious about downtown congestion. London congestion pricing has been a smashing success, with the Times reporting today on an unexpected benefit: drastically reduced parking costs downtown. Not the mention the significant revenue for public transportation investment. Now officials in Manchester are contemplating a two-ring system that would charge motorists £1-3 to enter the city, depending on the time of day and location. While business types are skeptical (as they usually are) the only evidence they can marshal are opinion polls. That takes us to Paris, a city that has cut auto use by 20 percent in seven years — without London-style congestion pricing. When parking spaces were converted to a dedicated bus route, the residents of the Left Bank neighborhood of Montparnasse held a funeral, predicting the death of the neighborhood. Now the owner of a famous cafe admits “We’ve come to love it,” noting the bus brings workers and customers with improved efficiency. Elsewhere in the city, programs initiated by mayor Bertrand Delanoë are raising the cost of parking, creating dedicated bus and bicycle lanes, making tens of thousands of bikes available for rent, and “civilizing” the city’s most car-friendly streets by cutting lanes and expanding pedestrian space.

D.C.’s attempts are meager in comparison. Increased parking meter prices are only in effect in several neighborhoods. The tiny and highly-hyped bike sharing program still hasn’t launched despite media reports it would start in May. The networking of bicycle lanes and trails is fragmented and far shorter than other U.S. cities. DDOT’s experimental bus and bicycle lane on 9th Street downtown is too short and poorly marked and enforced to make much of a difference.

The solutions to congestion are at hand, all that’s lacking is the resources and political will to do them.

The Draft Pedestrian Master Plan found that 18% of D.C. blocks have incomplete or missing sidewalks on one or both sides of the street. It also included these statistics regarding accidents: An average of 670 pedestrians were injured each year from 2000 to 2006, and in 2004 pedestrian fatalities accounted for 22% of all traffic fatalities in the city.

Reviewing the report, the following recommendations caught my eye:

• Complete the sidewalk network
• Locate bus stops at the far side of intersections (after the bus crosses through the intersection) to improve safety
• Increase ticket fine for motorists who refuse to yield to a pedestrian (It’s $50 now in D.C., Arlington charges $500)
• Expand the photo radar speeding reduction program
• Develop walking information on DDOT and Washington.org tourist website
• Reduce the minimum driveway width for residential uses from 12-feet to 10-feet, and establish a 14-foot maximum width … For commercial uses, the District should reduce the minimum width for two-way traffic from 24-foot to 22-foot to reflect best practices. (Appendix C)
• Leading Pedestrian Intervals: “A large proportion of vehicle/pedestrian collisions at signalized intersections involve left- and right-turning vehicles. One phasing strategy to improve pedestrian safety in locations with heavy volumes of turning traffic and frequent pedestrian crossings is to provide an LPI. During the leading interval, all motor vehicle flows are stopped for 2-4 seconds while pedestrians are given the WALK signal.”
• Develop guidelines and standard details for utilizing advanced stop lines at all multi-lane uncontrolled crossings.
• Adopt policies that encouraging medians, minimum width of 6 ft (currently 4 ft)

The consultants preparing the report, Toole Design Group, will accept comments until June 20th before revising it to issue their final plan.

> W. Post: D.C. Pedestrian Safety Strategy to Target High-Crash Intersections
> District of Columbia Pedestrian Master Plan