Jonetta Rose Barras: Is DC Government Violating the Fair Housing Act?

"Call it a modern-day version of redlining, where the growth and development of an entire community is suppressed by racial and economic segregation. In the early and mid-20th century, most discriminatory policies and practices were designed and implemented by whites. These days, in the District, a predominantly Black-led government is the culprit, hindering middle-class residents from expanding their hard-earned investments and preventing low-income residents from securing the types of opportunities that could eventually help some of them become members of the middle class." 

 Read More

Southwest Voice Criticizes Johns Hopkins' "Public Health Note" on Environmental Justice Bill

Southwest Voice strongly criticizes the "Public Health Note" on the Environmental Justice Bill under Council consideration. Dr. Christopher Williams, Southwest Voice Editor-in-chief, discusses major deficits in the note authored by the Health in All Policies Initiative (HiAPI) at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health authored the note. The letter is published here, with modification.

Re: Response to Environmental Bill’s Public Health Note

July 11, 2024

Dear Council Committee on Transportation and the Environment,

I am writing a brief response to the Public Health Note on Bill 25-0564 - the Environmental Justice Amendment Act of 2023. Health in All Policies Initiative (HiAPI) at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health authored the note. Mary A. Fox, Ph.D., MPH provided review. The primary criticism concerns the lack of insight into Washington, DC and its public health economy. Although the note discusses extensive public health theories and studies that may be relevant to the bill, it does not consider 1) current underperformance of DOEE, 2) patterns in Council deference to the Executive on environmental health, and 3) tendencies of the Executive to produce assessments that are highly favorable to developers and polluters.

In my testimony before the Council on this bill, I remarked, "When DC Council debated and approved the Comprehensive Plan in 2021, it should have required the mayor to submit an environmental impact assessment, as is the law. For nearly 20 years, the Executive has proceeded with acute gentrification and urbanization that have harmed communities, particularly Black communities and low-income communities. The last environmental impact assessment in 2006 spanned over 300 pages." The Council allowed the Executive to pass off a six-page report as an environmental assessment, which it was not. This points to a major issue with governance in the District. Too often, the legislature capitulates to the Executive, but not just on impact assessments. The Executive has usurped the legislative power of appropriations with respect to contingency fund spending and government contracting - routinely granting contracts without the legally required Council approval. While the Council struggled this year with closing budget gaps for critical social programs, the Executive increased District spending by one billion dollars for the upcoming budget year - a pattern in reckless spending that the Council supported for at least the last 10 years. The system of checks and balances between the legislature and executive needs much improvement. Given the current imbalance, there is little faith that the Council will provide quality oversight of these assessments.

One area of lax oversight that is particularly germane to this bill is DOEE, which appears to be unable or unwilling to perform basic regulatory oversight. I am not convinced that they know how to align air permit regulations with the law. In my recent letter to DOEE, I found major deficits in their permit review (https://www.southwestvoicedc.com). DOEE did not establish any findings of fact consistent with the law and did not even pretend to consider statutory requirements on non-attainment areas, air quality attainment goals, and ensuring a decrease in air pollutants for the community. Any viable "health note" or public health analysis of this bill must consider the regulatory state of DC's environmental regulatory agency. DOEE’s posture that "past performance" of a polluter does not matter strongly suggests that DOEE is not positioned and does not desire to further its public health mission and public obligations to the Southwest community.

The HiAPI authors' analysis and approach reflect a central problem in the field of public health. Public Health Liberation theory has strongly criticized the lack of academic integration in the public health economy (Williams et al, 2022). Researchers have become alienated and removed from the social, political, and economic milieus that explain health inequity reproduction. Data collection and acontextual theory have defined the field. We explained, "Health equity research is valuable insofar as studies can be reproduced and can assume that unmeasured variables, including external influences, do not confound the study." The theories and studies that the note cites can only support and advance equity insofar as those public health economies are similar to the District. The report has many unfounded assumptions – a similar pattern that we saw in another report - The Office of Health Equity Health Equity Impact Review. It gathered every study imaginable to support an underlying premise on the Congress Heights Small Area Plan (SAP) (https://www.southwestvoicedc.com/OHE). As noted in Southwest Voice, "The 72-page report did not reflect upon development elsewhere in the District to inform its findings, among other major flaws." The lead author had no public health training. All of the authors were white women. In effect, the Mayor used this report to allay public concerns and to ease adoption of the SAP. This paper has asked HiAPI to verify if African Americans substantively participated in the development of the note. As of this writing, HiAPI has not responded.

The CHASS report is also instructive. In response to plans for Audi Field and community opposition, the Office of Health Equity again produced recommendations to ease adoption of catalytic real estate. The CHASS report’s recommendations were never implemented or funded. OHE never asked for funding either. The Buzzard Point community – Syphax Gardens, Greenleaf, and James Creek – continues to be victimized by environmental racism due to unrelenting redevelopment on highly contaminated land and due to increased sources of pollution.

There is little doubt that any environmental impact assessment triggered by Bill 25-0564 will keep the same patterns, as discussed. The health note lacks serious consideration of the public health economic context, which it purports will only realize benefits. The bill needs to be strengthened to convey an understanding of the District's public health economy.

Sincerely,

Christopher Williams, PhD
Editor-in-chief, Southwest Voice - The People's Paper

Christopher Williams, PhD, is a national leader in health equity who innovated public health theories about Public Health Liberation and the Public Health Economy.

Editor-in-Chief Lambasts Poor DOEE Environmental Regulatory Reviews for Air Pollution Permit Application in SW

Christopher Williams, Southwest Voice Editor-in-chief, recently responded to the District's environmental regulatory agency (DOEE) concerning an air pollution permit application in Southwest.  His letter highlights major deficits in DOEE's analysis. DOEE lacks rigor to its analysis and does not meet minimum permitting standards of environmental law. The Chevron deference doctrine likely explains the poor quality of agency reports since the agency was afforded a surfeit of deference and beyond the reach of judicial interpretation.

July 10, 2024

District of Columbia Department of Energy & Environment
1200 First Street NE, 5th Floor
Washington DC 20002

Dear DOEE Officials,

This letter responds to DOEE notice # N136234 (Draft Air Quality Operating Permit 6451-R2 – Virginia Concrete Company, LLC dba Vulcan Materials Company, 2 S Street SW). On Thursday, June 27, 2024, the District of Columbia Department of Energy & Environment (DOEE) extended the public comment period through Wednesday, July 10, 2024.

Background
The consideration of this permit comes at a highly usual period in US regulatory and judicial history. The US Supreme Court has overturned the Chevron deference doctrine, which compelled judges to defer to federal agencies’ interpretation of their authorizing statutes and regulations. Because the District of Columbia (“The District”) is not a state, but rather a federal district, the impact in the District is immediate. No longer will District agencies’ interpretation constrain judicial independence.

DOEE has engaged in systemic environmental racism. As Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie explained in a letter introducing an environmental justice bill, “For decades, the District has concentrated facilities that produce air pollution, hazardous waste, water pollution, stormwater runoff, and urban heat island effects in low income and predominantly Black neighborhoods” (lims.dccouncil.gov). The courts had little recourse for redress due to lax regulation and environmental racism unless the judiciary determined that agencies’ interpretation was “not plainly wrong or inconsistent with the legislative purpose” (DOEE vs. East Capitol, 2013) – a high bar that erected considerable challenges for plaintiffs to overcome. As with DOEE, agencies could devise their own approach to regulation and avoid their statutory obligations to public health and welfare.

In a public meeting in July 2024, Stephen Ours, DOEE Air Quality Permitting Branch Chief, discussed the agency’s regulatory framework, "What we are evaluating is, ‘Can this facility comply with our regulatory requirements’?" He meant by this “capacity”. In other words, DOEE did not seriously consider its public health mission and obligations, much less the environmental racism that it has caused in the Southwest neighborhood.

The Chevron deference doctrine is no longer.

Position: For the reasons below, DOEE must deny permit #6451-R2 permanently.

I.               Affirmative Defenses – On July 5, 2024, DOEE proposed an agency rule to remove emergency affirmative defense provisions from Title V programs to meet a new requirement set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The draft permit included provisions for affirmative defenses on malfunctioning equipment, which should be removed. Inclusion of this language is not consistent with federal requirements and violates provisions about non-attainment areas because it loosens requirements.

II.             Did Not Make a Finding – The law requires that DOEE make six (6) findings (D.C. Code § 20-201.1). Establishment of permit conditions is not sufficient. DOEE must make a finding of fact consistent with the law. Findings are additive, meaning that all findings must be made. Further, "Findings of fact and conclusions of law shall be supported by and in accordance with the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence" (D.C. Code § 2-501 et seq). DOEE did not establish any findings of fact (See Technical Memorandum and draft permit).

1.    DOEE did not make a finding that “that the applicant’s proposed equipment, facilities, and procedures are adequate to minimize the danger to public health and welfare”. DOEE acknowledges, “The 2 S Street SW site has been the subject of a number complaints and concerns expressed by the community surrounding the plant in recent years”(See Technical Memorandum), but does not make any finding on public health and welfare, particularly with respect to the Southwest community.

2.    DOEE did not make a finding that “that the issuance of the permit will not be inimical to the public health and welfare”.

3.    DOEE did not make a finding that “That the operation of the source will not prevent or interfere with the attainment and maintenance of any applicable national ambient air quality standard and will not result in the contravention of any provision of the Federal Clean Air Act or the regulations promulgated under the Act”. DOEE did not reference or attempt to reference any clean air quality standards or attainment goals.

4.    DOEE does not make a finding with respect to DCMR Title 20, Chapter 2, Section 201.1(f). DOEE did not establish a finding that “continuous (emphasis added) monitoring devices for opacity and for all pollutants for which the source is a major source are in operation” for any or all of the regulated pollutants.

III.            Non-Attainment

Washington, DC and the Southwest neighborhood are in a non-attainment area for environmental regulation (https://www.epa.gov/green-book). DC law has additional regulatory requirements for non-attainment areas (20 DCMR § 204). DOEE has drafted a permit application that violates the provisions of this law, specifically with respect to the “most stringent emission limit” or “lowest achievable emission rate”.

• DOEE does not establish or attempt to establish that its permit condition meets standards for “most stringent emission limit”.

• DOEE does not determine, “The applicant for a permit for the source will cause to have reduced… will result in decreased emissions of the pollutant in question, and will not adversely affect the air quality in any area not attaining the national ambient air quality standards.” DOEE does not establish or attempt to establish a decrease in emissions. As opposed to Vulcan’s previous permit, DOEE provides for affirmative defenses that directly contravenes air quality attainment and violates federal requirements.

• DOEE does not allege a “credit” transfer (20 DCMR § 204.5).
  
  

IV.           History

DOEE must review and evaluate the polluters’ history.

·       DOEE did not establish a finding consistent with this provision, “All (emphasis added) major stationary sources owned or operated in the District by the applicant (or by any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the applicant) are in compliance with, or on binding agreement to comply with, all emission limitations and standards under this subtitle and under the Federal Clean Air Act (emphasis added)” ( 20 DCMR § 204.4(b)). DOEE did not perform or attempt to perform its statutory obligations with respect to this provision. It needed to expand the scope of its regulatory review beyond this single site to the District of Columbia and all Vulcan facilities under the Federal Clean Air Act.

Position: For the reasons above, DOEE must deny permit #6451-R2 permanently.

Sincerely,
Christopher Williams, PhD

End of Chevron Deference Opens Pathway for Environmental Justice 

By Christopher Williams, PhD
Editor-in-Chief, Southwest Voice

The US Supreme Court decision overturning the Chevron deference doctrine opens a pathway for environmental justice in Washington, DC because courts can no longer defer to an agency's interpretation of its authorizing statutes and regulations. The sweeping impact of the court's Chevron decision in 1984 was not initially seen as a "watershed decision it was fated to become". [1] However, that decision has been highly consequential for communities impacted by environmental racism. The Chevron deference set in motion legal standards that created a high, if not insurmountable, bar to challenge government policies that perpetuated environmental harm. Where environmental regulatory agencies narrowly interpreted statues or favored polluters over public health, the courts had little room for judicial interpretation other than to defer to the agency. The immense deference that the US Supreme Court had afforded to agencies is no longer.

The most recent court decision overturning Chevron will have an immediate impact on Southwest. Public housing residents, who have been subjected to more than 80 years of environmental racism, can seek justice before a court that can provide for the effective administration of justice. 

Call for Ward 6 Councilmember Charles Allen to Increase Legislative Oversight of DC Environmental Agency

July 6, 2024

Dear Councilmember Allen,

This is a follow-up letter to my earlier letter asking for increased Council committee oversight of the Department of Energy and Environment (DOEE). DOEE has a weak regulatory framework for air quality permit violations due to “unavoidable malfunctions”. I have included the affirmative defense statutes from the District of Columbia and the Environmental Protection Agency.

As with draft air quality permit 6451-R2 – Virginia Concrete Company, language from 40 C.F.R. § 60.74a is appearing more frequently on air permits. As environmental professor Dr. Shizuka Hsieh described in her testimony at the June 26 public health, this language did not appear in the previous Vulcan permit. Based on a review of the District of Columbia Register, it appears that this language may have first been proposed in December 2021. Given this 1) major potential area of exemption or affirmative defense for air permit violations and 2) DOEE’s vague language vis-à-vis EPA standards, I believe that it warrants legislative action to include 1) public reporting on affirmative defenses and DOEE findings, 2) stricter environmental standards on establishing unavoidable malfunction, and 3) standardized and stricter regulatory reviews consistent with DOEE’s mission to  improve the quality of life for the residents.

While my full response to DOEE’s draft permit is not yet final, I will note that DOEE is highly selective about the statutory obligations in Title 20, Chapter 2 that it applies during its environmental regulatory review.

District of Columbia (70 DCR 010830)

Violation of standards set forth in this section that occur as a result of unavoidable malfunction, despite the conscientious employment of control practices, shall be an affirmative defense for which the owner or operator shall bear the burden of proof. A malfunction shall not be considered unavoidable if the owner or operator could have taken, but did not take, appropriate steps to eliminate the malfunction within a reasonable time, as determined by the Department.

Environmental Protection Agency (40 C.F.R. § 60.74a (2024)

(a) To establish the affirmative defense in any action to enforce such a standard, you must timely meet the reporting requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, and must prove by a preponderance of evidence that:

(1) The violation:

(i) Was caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of air pollution control equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner; and

(ii) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper design or better operation and maintenance practices; and

(iii) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and

(iv) Was not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance; and

(2) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when a violation occurred. Off-shift and overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to make these repairs; and

(3) The frequency, amount, and duration of the violation (including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable; and

(4) If the violation resulted from a bypass of control equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property damage; and

(5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the violation on ambient air quality, the environment, and human health; and

(6) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in operation if at all possible, consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices; and

(7) All of the actions in response to the violation were documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and

(8) At all times, the affected facility was operated in a manner consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions; and

(9) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the purpose of which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes of the malfunction and the violation resulting from the malfunction event at issue. The analysis shall also specify, using best monitoring methods and engineering judgment, the amount of any emissions that were the result of the malfunction.

Sincerely,

Christopher Williams, PhD

On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 4:23 PM Chris Williams <chriswilliams06@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Councilmember Allen,

I am writing to ask for greater legislative oversight of the DC Department of Energy and Environment (DOEE) and to inquire about updates on the Environmental Justice Amendment Act of 2023 (B25-0564).

The Air Quality Division (AQD) of the DOEE is hosting a public meeting tonight on the Air Quality Permit request (6451-R2) from Virginia Concrete Company, LLC dba Vulcan Materials Company, 2 S Street SW. There are major gaps in public data that warrant major oversight of the legislature.

• Compliant Database – DOEE has not maintained a public database of citizen complaints and resolutions consistent with DC law (§ 8–101.05, “Make publicly available on the Department of Energy and Environment's website a quarterly report listing all air quality complaints received and their resolution”). The website housing quarterly reports has not been updated since 2016. The outcomes report has not been updated since 2015. The lack of accessible data infringes upon the rights, roles, and responsibilities of residents as vested parties in the governmental process of deliberation on air pollution permit renewals.

• Enforcement Database – The DOEE Enforcement Database does not load and deprives the public of vital information about notices of infraction (NOIs) on environmental laws (Exhibit 1 - see pdf). No substantive data can be retrieved because the map and citations selected panel do not load. The lack of accessible data infringes upon the rights, roles, and responsibilities of residents as vested parties in the governmental process of deliberation on air pollution permits.

• Facility Inspection - DOEE acknowledges that it has a statutory obligation and affirmative role in environmental regulation (“regularly inspects facilities with pollution permits to ensure compliance with District air quality regulations”).  However, no information on inspections and monitoring consistent with this role is publicly accessible. In fact, Stephen S. Ours, Chief, DOEE Air Quality Permitting Branch and Hannah Ashenafi, Associate Director, DOEE, Air Quality Division appear confused in response to an inquiry about DOEE compliance monitoring activities related to the pollution source (Virginia Concrete Company, LLC) in Southwest DC (email documentation). It does not appear that DOEE can readily identify affirmative action and facility inspections.

• Lack of Regulatory, Legislative, and Public Access to Self-Monitoring Data – The facility in Southwest is known to produce pollutants that are harmful to human health (total particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, and carbon monoxide). District environmental regulation via permit issuance place a cap (tons) on the emission of these pollutants per year. In addition, there are limitations on fugitive dust, discharge at certain sites, and operating of specific equipment. No single-point source data is available with respect to compliance with pollutant tons per year. Without this essential data, no vested party (the District, the legislature, or the public) can effectuate their privileges, role, responsibilities, or rights. DOEE cannot act on its purpose as set forth in law (§20-100 , “The purpose of the air quality regulations is to prevent or minimize emissions into the atmosphere and thereby protect and enhance the quality of the District's air resources so as to protect the public health and welfare”). The District cannot solely rely on the ostensible good faith of polluters to adhere to the law. In a case on federal environmental regulations, the court decides that 1) quality monitoring data must be collected and 2) that data must be made available to the public prior to a public hearing.

“This analysis shall include continuous air quality monitoring data gathered for purposes of determining whether emissions from such facility will exceed the [increment] or the maximum allowable concentration permitted under [the NAAQS]. Such data shall be gathered over a period of one calendar year preceding the date of application for a permit under this part unless the State, in accordance with regulations promulgated by the [EPA], determines that a complete and adequate analysis for such purposes may be accomplished in a shorter period. The results of such analysis shall be available at the time of the public hearing on the application for such permit.” (Sierra Club vs. Environmental Protection Agency, US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, 2013)

• Timing – The public hearing notice for the meeting occurring tonight does not provide the public with any analysis. This is in substantial noncompliance with effective and informed public participation.

Again, there is a plain lack of data on DOEE’s monitoring, inspections, and NOI citations. I strongly encourage community appeal and litigation against any approval of this permit.

Legislation that you have introduced on environmental justice (Environmental Justice Amendment Act of 2023 - B25-0564) states that, “For decades, the District has concentrated facilities that produce air pollution, hazardous waste, water pollution, stormwater runoff, and urban heat island effects in low income and predominantly Black neighborhoods…Instead of empowering and lifting up the needs of these resilient neighborhoods, we have exposed them to an outrageous accumulation of environmental hazards through our land use, planning, and permitting processes.”

I am writing for an update on this legislation. Sevel major omissions were pointed out in my testimony: integrating the lens of the public health economy, removal of sources of environmental racism and injustice, excluding Southwest from areas of environmental racism and injustice, and granting mayoral latitude to rely on ward-level comparison data despite that environmental harm is concentrated in Black neighborhoods.

Sincerely,

Christopher Menvell Williams, PhD

SW Residents Voice Opposition to Air Pollution Permit

ANC6D Commissioner Rhonda Hamilton led community opposition to the air permit application of Vulcan - a polluter in Southwest DC, long associated the District's legacy of environmental racism in the neighborhood. The meeting was held on June 26 at Southwest Library. In addition to dozens of community voices, Southwest Voice Editor-in-Chief and Public Health Liberation Founding Director Dr. Christopher Williams also testified.

Following the meeting, Dr. Williams sent follow-up emails to DOEE Air Quality Director Stephen Ours and Ward 6  Councilmember Charles Allen. 

Juen 29, 2024

Thank you, Mr. Allen, for your response. I will work with Commissioner Hamilton and affected community members to see if we can set up a meeting with your office. There are major concerns that we have about the Vulcan air permit review process and in totality. I am especially alarmed about...

1. Mr. Ours specifically stated that DOEE officials take documents home, then elaborated that any documents taken to the office would become FOIA-able, publicly accessible documents. It strongly suggests that DOEE officials are getting around public accessibility to documents and information.

2. Mr. Ours stated that past performance is not taken into account. That is not consistent with environmental regulatory review laws.

3. As I prepare my written statement to DOEE on the Vulcan permit, I am very concerned that the maximum pollutant limits per year are established according to the maximum production capacity. It is the equivalent of allowing all cars to go the highest speed based on the notion that they have that capacity. In both instances, it endangers public health and safety.

4. I encourage you to watch these videos from impacted people and allies.

“If not now then when, if not me then who?”

Video 1 - Link (ANC6D Commissioner Rhonda Hamilton)

Video 2 - Link (testimonies from audience)

Video 3 - Link (testimonies from audience)

Video 4 - Link (Dr. Hsieh's testimony)

June 26, 2-2024

Mr. Ours, 

I am writing to ask for 1) a copy of the AQD performance analysis referenced here, "Additionally, AQD performed a pilot mobile air quality monitoring project in the area, which identified relatively high particulate matter levels on roadways in the vicinity of the plant." and 2) the Vulcan reporting referenced here, "The way any air permit is set up...There are monitoring and testing requirements in that permit that lay out what the facility has to do to monitor and test and there are reporting requirements and things get submitted to us and we evaluate it."

You have been copied on my letter to Mr. Allen. I am preparing a written response to DOEE by the deadline. A number of points from our discussion this evening are very alarming, including but not limited to: 

• Mr Ours: "So we would have some historical information...There are records that they have to maintain that we don't necessarily get. Our inspectors may view them when they go out. We may not take them home in some cases...If we do take something back to the office, it is generally public information."
  
  later in conversation

• Mr. Ours: "What we are evaluating is, "Can this facility comply with our regulatory requirements?"

• Dr. Williams: "Based on past performance"...

• Mr. Ours: "No, it's not based on past performance."

Critical Request for DOEE Oversight: Open Letter to Ward 6 Councilor Charles Allen

Dear Councilmember Allen,

I am writing to ask for greater legislative oversight of the DC Department of Energy and Environment (DOEE) and to inquire about updates on the Environmental Justice Amendment Act of 2023 (B25-0564).

The Air Quality Division (AQD) of the DOEE is hosting a public meeting tonight on the Air Quality Permit request (6451-R2) from Virginia Concrete Company, LLC dba Vulcan Materials Company, 2 S Street SW. There are major gaps in public data that warrant major oversight of the legislature.

• Complaint Database – DOEE has not maintained a public database of citizen complaints and resolutions consistent with DC law (§ 8–101.05, “Make publicly available on the Department of Energy and Environment's website a quarterly report listing all air quality complaints received and their resolution”). The website housing quarterly reports has not been updated since 2016. The outcomes report has not been updated since 2015. The lack of accessible data infringes upon the rights, roles, and responsibilities of residents as vested parties in the governmental process of deliberation on air pollution permit renewals.

• Enforcement Database – The DOEE Enforcement Database does not load and deprives the public of vital information about notices of infraction (NOIs) on environmental laws (Exhibit 1 - see pdf). No substantive data can be retrieved because the map and citations selected panel do not load. The lack of accessible data infringes upon the rights, roles, and responsibilities of residents as vested parties in the governmental process of deliberation on air pollution permits.

• Facility Inspection - DOEE acknowledges that it has a statutory obligation and affirmative role in environmental regulation (“regularly inspects facilities with pollution permits to ensure compliance with District air quality regulations”).  However, no information on inspections and monitoring consistent with this role is publicly accessible. In fact, Stephen S. Ours, Chief, DOEE Air Quality Permitting Branch and Hannah Ashenafi, Associate Director, DOEE, Air Quality Division appear confused in response to an inquiry about DOEE compliance monitoring activities related to the pollution source (Virginia Concrete Company, LLC) in Southwest DC (email documentation). It does not appear that DOEE can readily identify affirmative action and facility inspections.

• Lack of Regulatory, Legislative, and Public Access to Self-Monitoring Data – The facility in Southwest is known to produce pollutants that are harmful to human health (total particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, and carbon monoxide). District environmental regulation via permit issuance place a cap (tons) on the emission of these pollutants per year. In addition, there are limitations on fugitive dust, discharge at certain sites, and operating of specific equipment. No single-point source data is available with respect to compliance with pollutant tons per year. Without this essential data, no vested party (the District, the legislature, or the public) can effectuate their privileges, role, responsibilities, or rights. DOEE cannot act on its purpose as set forth in law (§20-100 , “The purpose of the air quality regulations is to prevent or minimize emissions into the atmosphere and thereby protect and enhance the quality of the District's air resources so as to protect the public health and welfare”). The District cannot solely rely on the ostensible good faith of polluters to adhere to the law. In a case on federal environmental regulations, the court decides that 1) quality monitoring data must be collected and 2) that data must be made available to the public prior to a public hearing.

“This analysis shall include continuous air quality monitoring data gathered for purposes of determining whether emissions from such facility will exceed the [increment] or the maximum allowable concentration permitted under [the NAAQS]. Such data shall be gathered over a period of one calendar year preceding the date of application for a permit under this part unless the State, in accordance with regulations promulgated by the [EPA], determines that a complete and adequate analysis for such purposes may be accomplished in a shorter period. The results of such analysis shall be available at the time of the public hearing on the application for such permit.” (Sierra Club vs. Environmental Protection Agency, US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, 2013)

• Timing – The public hearing notice for the meeting occurring tonight does not provide the public with any analysis. This is in substantial noncompliance with effective and informed public participation.

Again, there is a plain lack of data on DOEE’s monitoring, inspections, and NOI citations. I strongly encourage community appeal and litigation against any approval of this permit.

Legislation that you have introduced on environmental justice (Environmental Justice Amendment Act of 2023 - B25-0564) states that, “For decades, the District has concentrated facilities that produce air pollution, hazardous waste, water pollution, stormwater runoff, and urban heat island effects in low income and predominantly Black neighborhoods…Instead of empowering and lifting up the needs of these resilient neighborhoods, we have exposed them to an outrageous accumulation of environmental hazards through our land use, planning, and permitting processes.”

I am writing for an update on this legislation. Sevel major omissions were pointed out in my testimony: integrating the lens of the public health economy, removal of sources of environmental racism and injustice, excluding Southwest from areas of environmental racism and injustice, and granting mayoral latitude to rely on ward-level comparison data despite that environmental harm is concentrated in Black neighborhoods.

Sincerely,

Christopher Williams, PhD

Labor Exploitation and DC's Summer Youth Program

Dear Committee on Labor and Workforce Development,

I am writing as an educator and community leader to express deep concerns about the educational value and appropriateness of the Marion S. Barry's Summer Youth Employment Program (MBSYEP) for at-risk students. My overall concern is that the program is primarily using the program to fill labor shortages. At-risk students should be receiving more support during the summer to address educational, behavioral health, and career goal-setting needs. That would be a better investment in our youth.

Story of SW Teen

I ran into a teen from Southwest this morning who was in need of breakfast. We journeyed back to Safeway. I took the occasion to understand their current educational and home situation. I have known them for at least 5 years from the neighborhood. They knew practically everyone in Safeway who they endearingly referred to as "Ma". For the last three years, I had been increasingly concerned about them - a concern that I did not share with them directly. I had seen the much older people that they were hanging out with, recreational marijuana use in public, and late night street socializing during the school night.  I thought that they were supposed to graduate already, but they were still in school. They suggested that they needed one math course to graduate. This "hard" course meant that they needed academic support. I am very concerned about this teen as are others in the community.

I feel that the last thing that this teen needs to be doing is a summer youth employment program. Rather, they need direct support in educational, behavioral health, and career-planning needs. Yes, the pay from the summer youth program is likely to be immensely helpful to the teen, but it addresses little in terms of their immediate and long-term needs. This teen is likely to represent many at-risk youth across the city. Like them, one-third of MBSYEP students will be involved with childcare. The prospect of public housing displacement will be absolutely disastrous since the social support that this teen has in Southwest, despite other challenges, is immense. This is why we are so adamant about Build First at Greenleaf.

I know what talents and ambition our youth in Southwest possess. Two female teenagers in Southwest come to mind. They are excelling academically with clear goals for college. Their families are highly involved, encouraging, and protective. There is little doubt that they will be success stories. However, it appears that those at greatest risk are falling into a gap that the current system is not addressing. I do not know what their future will hold, but I hope that it is better with improved attention to the students' whole needs.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I will also work with resident council leadership to see if we can get a plan for "them".

DCHA Greenleaf Resolution Not in Federal Compliance

The following letter was sent to the District of Columbia Housing Authority to communicate that its proposed resolution on Greenleaf redevelopment is not in compliance with federal requirements for effective engagement with the City Wide Resident Advisory Board. 

June 12, 2024

Dear Director Pettigrew,

This letter is intended to serve notice to the District of Columbia Housing Authority that its agenda for June 12 is not in substantial compliance with federal requirements on the effective participation of the resident advisory board (“City Wide Resident Advisory Board”) in its agency plan (“Moving to Work Plan”). The Greenleaf resolutions are significant amendments of the FY23 Moving to Work Plan. Resolution 24-23 (“To Authorize Submission to HUD of a Section 18 Application for Operating Subsidy Reposition of the Greenleaf Public Housing Community”) presents new and major proposed changes to its FY23 plan that did not allow sufficient time for the City Wide Resident Advisory Board’s review and discussion in violation of federal policies, “PHAs must give the RABs sufficient time to review and make recommendations on the Plan. RABs will be able to contribute best if they are provided with adequate information regarding the PHA's programs and the policies included in the Five-Year and Annual PHA Plan.” Neither the City Wide Advisory Board nor the respective Greenleaf resident councils have had an opportunity to meet since the introduction of this significant amendment at the end of last week. Thus, DCHA has violated each of the essential functions of the City Wide Resident Advisory Board: 1) “assist and make recommendations regarding the development (emphasis added) of the PHA Plan and any significant amendments or modifications to it,” 2) “must be given sufficient time to fully participate in the process so that they can carry out their proper role and provide representation that is meaningful and relevant to the development of the Plan”, and 3) “A PHA must consider the recommendations of the RABs and make revisions to drafts or to the Plan which it deems appropriate.”

The Board’s discussion of the Greenleaf resolution should be tabled until it can comply with federal regulations on RAB engagement.

Open Letter to DCHA Director Keith Pettigrew on Agency's Poor Greenleaf Plan

June 10, 2024

Dear Director Pettigrew,

The Greenleaf redevelopment plan has major deficits. Tonight, I had the opportunity to pose questions to you and your staff – both before and during the meeting. Your responses were highly unsatisfactory. In fact, the current plans are not consistent with the 1) request for qualifications (RFQ), 2) request for proposal (RFP), the 3) District’s Comprehensive Plan, 4) resident expectations, and 5) community goals, especially on the issue of Build First, preventing wholesale displacement, and preserving social diversity in Southwest. In this letter, I discuss salient concerns, legal and otherwise, about the redevelopment. The plans presented to residents lacked details and did not convey any more than a superficial picture even though residents’ lives would be destabilized and forever changed. Residents deserve better than a five-page PowerPoint. As much as former DCHA Executive Director Tyrone Garrett and his team were problematic, they were at least willing to disclose more information and timelines. The current plan for Greenleaf is nothing more than carte blanche to get around the RFQ, known procurement violations[1], residents, the resident leadership, ability to qualify as a legal party, and the Southwest Small Area Plan. In my judgment, it is worse than any plan that we have seen. Your expressed intent to accelerate redevelopment by circumventing a deliberate phasing as with Barry Farm and Park Morton is not noble. As far back as former DCHA director Adrianne Todman, Greenleaf has been regarded as a cash cow – a community to be used to shore up the failed financial position and poor decision-making of the agency. Now more than ever due to all of the high-priced luxury redevelopment that surrounds it and DCHA’s poor fiscal outlook, Greenleaf is positioned as the crown jewel to save the agency from financial insolvency. The physical condition of Greenleaf is, in fact, average across the portfolio based on HUD scoring.
I strongly encourage you and your leadership team to read this letter in its entirety.

Updates: June 10 Meeting at Greenleaf
We learned tonight that the District of Columbia is essentially planning to submit to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) a disposition application and Section 18 (Section 8) application this summer. This position is consistent with the prior administration, so we do not see any significant change here. Following several months of HUD review, DCHA anticipates that HUD will provide tenant-based vouchers for all remaining families in Greenleaf. The effect of putting residents in a position of accepting a voucher reflects past practices of DCHA that we saw at Barry Farm, Park Morton, and other public housing redevelopments in the last two decades. This is essentially a relocation plan. HUD evaluates a relocation plan in light of whether residents will be in a worse-off neighborhood. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to argue that any neighborhood in Washington, DC is superior in transportation access, access to mutual aid, access to public events, and resources for physical and mental health promotion whether due to parks, churches, waterside activities, proximity to the National Mall lawn and museums, etc. The prohibition against being relocated in a “worse off” neighborhood is a criteria in HUD approval decisions.

As you remarked, an approved Section 18 application will make Greenleaf Section 8 and increase federal subsidies for DCHA. As you know, Section 8 is primarily intended for private housing, but the presentation tonight did not address the implications of private housing on residents’ eligibility, tenancy, and risk of displacement. The impact of such conversion on the Greenleaf resident councils did not register on the radar. Will the Greenleaf resident councils be a legally recognized entity in the eyes of DCHA? Will the resident councils’ power and influence be effectively eliminated? Will the Citywide Advisory Board’s capability to advocate on behalf of Greenleaf residents be eliminated and legally non-binding and nonrelevant? The leadership of Mrs. Bishop, Mrs. Walker, and Mrs. Belk will be blunted. You know that.

The plan presented tonight keeps in place several problematic issues. In others, it worsens the situation for Greenleaf residents.

1) As I raised twice during tonight’s meeting, the one-for-one replacement principles does not account for affordable housing needs for the District or family housing. There is a need to expand affordable housing consistent with the mission of HUD and DCHA. There is no need to artificially preserve affordable housing thresholds from the 1960s. Your immediate predecessor Tyrone Garrett, as well as former DCHA Board member such as Bill Slover, welcomed self-development at Greenleaf due to its unique position financially and geographically. Below, you will find concerns about DCHA’s potential risk in violating Moving to Work requirements on the family unit size. The current plan for Greenleaf risk DCHA to be out of compliance with HUD’s Moving-to-Work agency rules.

2) The RFQ, the RFP, the District’s Comprehensive Plan, and the Southwest Small Area Plan all stress the importance of Build First[2]. Tonight, you mentioned that you had not heard of Build First (“never heard of it”) before coming to the District. That is surprising given your tenure in public housing management, but it is more disturbing than surprising because Build First is a valuable tool used across the US to ensure that racially discriminatory policies of wholesale displacement are not reproduced, a litmus test whether racism has evolved away from forms similar to Hope VI and urban renewal. Moreover, you are not actively seeking the establishment of Build First (“I am all for it if we can figure it out”). That was not a satisfactory answer because Build First is crucial to residents and the Southwest community to not repeat Southwest Urban Renewal and DCHA patterns from the last two decades.

Further, the entire procurement process has been opaque. Residents, much less the public, do not know what has been guaranteed in the memorandum of understanding (MOU) put into place by the previous administration. I suspect that the MOU has language on the current course of action (Section 8 conversion), but DCHA has not been forthcoming about the provisions of the MOU with respect to resident councils or the public. We do not know whether the MOU further erodes the central principles in the RFQ, RFP, Southwest Small Area Plan, or the District’s Comprehensive Plan.

3) You shared an example from your work in Alexandria, in which only four families out of more than 130 returned following redevelopment. The others, as you suggested, had their vouchers and were comfortable where they had relocated. You know as well as I do that this data is misleading because housing authorities often do not do a good job of keeping up-to-date information on residents. They take silence or non-response to an opportunity to return to the redevelopment as assent. Your remark also implies that you are comfortable if this scenario plays out in Southwest. With all due respect, this is a misplaced and erroneous assumption. In Southwest, we value our social diversity to include public housing communities.

The Southwest Small Area Plan has DC’s only small area plan to include a goal for preserving and protecting social diversity. In terms of your prior experience, it does not apply here. It is not welcomed. On account of redevelopment in and around Southwest, it was primed to go the way of Barry Farm, Park Morton, Arthur Capper, and other public housing communities. It did not because our resident leaders and community activists have insisted that the principle of social diversity be preserved. Notably, Southwest was not included in DC’s New Communities Initiative, which was the District’s version of Hope VI, an outgrowth of urban renewal policies. While the city has eroded the boundaries of the Southwest area, in effect, with elimination of the Wharf, north of 395, the Maryland Ave Small Area Plan, and Buzzard Point, the Greenleaf footprint is fully and indelibly in the Southwest Small Area Plan. Social diversity must be preserved that includes public housing communities.

4) You briefly touched upon the challenges in the housing market for voucher holders “We have some challenges,” but you nor your team conveyed the issues that Greenleaf residents who accept vouchers are likely to encounter. You have been copied on emails that I have personally faced in helping a homeless resident with applying for and securing housing. In an email trail of three months, I have shown how landlords are violating District law on limiting the use of credit history in application decisions and ineffective programs that are contracted to help residents. You made no mention and do not account for the barriers that Greenleaf residents are likely to face in trying to use their housing voucher. You made no mention of increased expenses due to separate utility bills, trash fees, and amenity fees.

5) You and your team said little of the implications of Section 8 conversion. Your spokesperson, Sheila, said that requirements for Section 8 will remain the same. That is an unsubstantiated statement. In fact, all that we know about Section 8 is that property managers have much more discretion in not only choosing tenants for the property, but also in evicting residents from the property. The presentation did not reflect the reality in terms of how Section 8 properties operate. Fundamental questions were not answered. Will households need to reapply? Will households lose tenant protections such as federal public housing protections, resident council leaders, and representation by the Citywide Resident Advisory Board? Yes, yes, and yes. What will be the eligibility criteria? What percentage of residents currently meet the eligibility criteria (e.g., not behind on rent)? What will happen to residents if they are no longer considered eligible at the end of their current lease? What private interests specifically will manage the property? Nothing was mentioned about residents’ likely increased housing costs on the market, even with a voucher, due to separate electric bills, trash fees, increased transportation costs, and amenity fees. The decision to opt for a Section 8 conversion and vouchers is half-baked.

          I am deeply concerned about the information that has been shared with resident leaders to date. I strongly feel that they have been misled. Since your reputation precedes you, they and I had very positive reviews based upon your past tenures at various housing authorities, including DCHA. However, I have little confidence that they are being given a full and total picture about what is to happen to them and their neighbors. They deserve full disclosure and justification for DCHA decisions that affect their lives, including threats to their leadership position, access to resources in and around Southwest, access to social support, and financial position.

6) The presentation and presenters obfuscated the issue of vouchers until asked. I broached the subject of project-based versus tenant vouchers. The screen nor the printed slideshow discussed the use of tenant vouchers. In response to my question, you elaborated on this topic, which I have taken as follows. Residents will be issued resident vouchers following HUD’s approval of the disposition and Section 8 applications. Those residents who elect to stay on the property will have project-based vouchers or who elect to return, meaning that they cannot move in any public housing unit in the DCHA portfolio – a major difference in their current set of opportunities. You and your staff did not answer whether residents will be forced to accept a voucher or receive meaningful assistance in locating and securing housing.

Previously Posted Questions to DCHA
I am including questions that I posed to the DCHA Board of Commissioners previously. My hope is to give you a full picture of the relevant issues, legal and otherwise. Procurement violations are known to have occurred, so the retention is the current developer is perplexing. Despite language in the RFQ and RFP, as well as residents’ and the community’s backing, no Build First exists.

·       There are extensive rehabilitation and renovation at Greenleaf. DCHA has not conducted any health impact assessments prior to this work and did not do so following Greenleaf residents’ expressed concerns at recent Board meetings. When will DCHA conduct health impact assessments prior to exposing residents to air contaminants and other health hazards?

·       In the early part of this year, a senior HUD official described DCHA as, “one of the worst housing authorities in the country". DCHA has not been compliant with the Moving to Work requirements and has been on probation for many years. One of the reasons involves DCHA serving fewer families that the law allows. Is DCHA anticipating probationary status in perpetuity?

·       Policy changes due to increased HUD oversight has been alluded to on this Board meeting call, suggesting that DCHA is aware of the findings of a recent HUD investigation. What are the results of this investigation? When will those results be disclosed?

·       The redevelopment plans for Greenleaf is contingent upon a federal approval of an exemption to the right of first refusal. However, there are certain conditions must be fulfilled. An area of concern is DCHA’s unsubstantiated claim that Greenleaf is obsolete. What justifies this claim? Greenleaf Senior is having its life extended considerably. DCHA is making what appears to be making a multi-million-dollar investment in Greenleaf. Based on HUD’s recent physical inspection report, half of all public housing in DC is worst offer than Greenleaf. Again, what justifies the claim that Greenleaf is obsolete?

·       HUD’s Moving to Work FSS Program is intended for residents to set individualized goals that will assist them in moving toward increased self-sufficiency within a five-year period. When and how will DCHA increase visibility of this program offering?

·       Did DCHA violate or is suspected to have violated any procurement rules in its selection of Greenleaf District Partners as final co-developers?

·       Why hasn't the Board still not received results of the Greenleaf request for proposals final rubric? The Board does not have any data substantiating why District Partners was the best proposal.

·       Mr. Garrett had a long time relationship with Pennrose dating back to his time at the Long Branch Housing Authority in New Jersey. Pennrose is a part of the final co-development team that constitutes Greenleaf District Partners. What disclosures involving a conflict of interest, if any, did Mr. Garrett make to staff and the Board about his longtime relationship with Pennrose?

·       Eight (8) out of the 11 panelists who scored the final applications were DCHA staff. Did Mr. Garrett's known relationship with Pennrose influence DCHA staff's scoring of the final application and thus prevent a fair assessment. The Greenleaf redevelopment request for proposals and qualifications strongly emphasized a Build First model. However, the final selection did not primarily seek a Build First model to minimize displacement unlike other applications. We have yet to identify a Build First site for Greenleaf, yet it was an area of priority in both stages of the application. Why is it that we do not have a Build First site for Greenleaf?

·       How will the Housing Authority get out of offering the property to residents as a part of the federal right of first refusal because it cannot argue that the property is obsolete. The Greenleaf property as you know was built at the same time all buildings. The Housing Authority is preserving Greenleaf Senior which makes the statement that the entire development is obsolete false because they were all built around the same time and they are all more or less in the same condition.”

·       On what authority does Director Donald claim that she can withhold the full and complete details of the Greenleaf Master Development Agreement?

·       DCHA officials recently disclosed that it will begin closely evaluating Section 3 requirements for a specific property in its portfolio.

·       Across public and voucher populations, is DCHA tracking and monitoring compliance with Section 3 requirements? How? When will DCHA publicly disclose results from Section 3 monitoring?

·       What is DCHA's strategy for furthering the aims and goals of Section 3 as a Moving to Work agency?

·       When will DCHA disclose the final applications as part of the request for proposals for the Greenleaf redevelopment?

·       When will DCHA disclose the final evaluation forms (rubric scoring and comments) of the 11 panelists for the Greenleaf redevelopment?

·       When will DCHA disclose the minutes from all panel deliberations during the request for qualifications (RFQ) and request for applications (RFP) processes? Who served as chair(s) of those meetings?

·       Why hasn't DCHA disclose the final evaluation forms from all panelists for the Greenleaf redevelopment?

·       On what legal basis did DCHA deny the ANC6D's request for the final applications, operating agreement, or other such requested public documents related to the Greenleaf redevelopment?

·       Were there any allegations of improper and/or illegal conduct of representatives from development interests involved in the Greenleaf request for qualifications or proposals? Was there any follow up or investigations? Prompted by allegations, did DCHA forward any requests for investigation to any legal entity outside of DCHA?

·       Did any Greenleaf resident ask a DCHA official that a party affiliated with a development interest with Greenleaf cease improper conduct? Did these allegations involve an offer(s) of any gift or service to a resident that has a monetary value equal to or greater than $1? Did these exchange involve other promises?

·       Did any DCHA staff communicated to their supervisor or other DCHA staff that there was misconduct in developer behavior that would run afoul of federal procurement rules related to Greenleaf redevelopment or other DCHA developments within the last 5 years?

·       Were there individuals (other than the 11 panelists evaluating the Greenleaf applications) involved in panel deliberations or otherwise exerted influence in the process for the Greenleaf redevelopment? Did these individuals (not part of the 11 panelists) speak during the panel deliberations, including formal and informal meetings? If so, what did these individuals say?

·       Was there any occasion in which Greenleaf panelists sought the advice and counsel of Mr. Garret with specific purpose and intent to inform and influence panel deliberations?

·       Were there criteria considered in the application process for either the request for qualifications or proposals that was not included in the official evaluation rubric?

·       Greenleaf is one-third three bedrooms or more. Has DCHA evaluated whether its intent or plan for Greenleaf will make it non-compliant with the federal family housing or size requirement for Moving to Work programs?

·       HUD has placed DCHA under a corrective plan for non-compliance with the MTW "substantially the same requirement" for years. Has DCHA evaluated whether its intent or plan for Greenleaf will make it indefinitely non-compliant with the "substantially the same" requirement for Moving to Work programs?

·       Greenleaf leadership is opposed to the Greenleaf redevelopment plans - of the limited details that have been publicly disclosed. What is DCHA's response to residents' desire for partial or full self-development?

·       After entering into a negotiating period, DCHA announced that Greenleaf Senior would be preserved. Why? No plan that was pitched by the final slate of developers during the RFP sought to preserve a single building in Greenleaf.

·       The latest plan shown to residents and the public deviate substantially from the RFP (e.g. preservation of Greenleaf Senior, use of RAD, selling of public land, no Build First site). Why? On what legal basis does DCHA argue that it is lawfully proceeding with redevelopment and negotiation?

·       When will DCHA provide legal disclosures to residents about the substantial deviations of the Greenleaf plan as in the RFQ and RFP? When will DCHA seek to uphold the due process rights of residents by letting them know that they can challenge the development plans on this basis?

·       Ms. Carter, a representative from District Partners, indicated on record that she will look into historic designation for Greenleaf Senior. Why isn't historical preservation sought for other Greenleaf properties since they share the same architectural firm and historical significance?

·       What is DCHA's response to the whistleblower allegations in a 2021 issue of Southwest Voice of a current or former DCHA employee that the Greenleaf redevelopment violated federal procurement rules?

·       Did DCHA have intent to exclude a resident representative from the panel evaluating the Greenleaf RFP applications until a resident objected to the absence of a resident representative?

·       Did Mr. Garrett direct efforts to resist providing for and retaining a resident representative on the Greenleaf RFP panel?

·       Was the panel formed to evaluate the Greenleaf RFP applications biased and prevent from a fair assessment due to selection bias? Was Mr. Garrett involved in an effort to foreclose a fair assessment due to the make-up of the Greenleaf RFP panel?

·       At least 50% of Greenleaf was emptied out in 2021 within a matter of months. Did DCHA initiate a relocation plan for Greenleaf redevelopment without prior approval from HUD?

·       Did DCHA initiate unlawful eviction notices to residents in Greenleaf Senior? How many individuals did DCHA file eviction paperwork against who resided or continue to reside on Greenleaf?

·        Did any evictions initiated by Greenleaf result in homelessness of any households. Fact: I am aware of such instances.

·       Did DCHA seek to provide legal support resources for Greenleaf households who were under threat of eviction?

·       Of the households who no longer live in Greenleaf from this time last year, what were the circumstances associated with their re-location, eviction, or displacement?

·       Has DCHA assessed the mental and physical health impact of Greenleaf residents who no longer reside at Greenleaf Senior and were residents at this point last year? Are these residents aware that they no longer qualify to return to Greenleaf if it is redeveloped and other legal disclosures?

·       What were DCHA's environmental health mitigation plans to prevent air contaminants at Greenleaf Senior PRIOR to starting extensive renovation work?

·       After receiving extensive complaints about poor air quality at Greenleaf Senior during an extensive renovation process, what corrective plan did DCHA implement?

·       What health assessments were conducted to understand health vulnerabilities of Greenleaf, including among populations with disabilities and sufferers from respiratory diseases and conditions?

·       A contractor at the Greenleaf Midrise building failed to provide for proper ventilation in using commercial products. Residents complained for several weeks about foul and contaminated air before action was taken. What is the oversight of DCHA contractors and why did it take so long for DCHA to compel the contractor to follow basic protocols? DCHA directed the contractor to read the instructions.

·       What exemptions to the federal right of refusal does DCHA intent to claim?

·       Is it lawful for DCHA to refuse to occupy vacated units in Greenleaf? Can this tactic constitute a violation of HUD regulations?

·       Has HUD warned DCHA before about emptying units within a property slated for redevelopment PRIOR to a formal redevelopment request to HUD?

·       Southwest offers countless amenities that provide protective health and economic factors against the effects poverty. Does DCHA recognize this?

·       Why is DCHA only committed to preserving the number of current DCHA units in Greenleaf when the value of the land and the proximity to resources are ideal for expanding affordable housing production and providing for protection against the effects of poverty?

·       Why was the Board only recently aware that partial sale of public land at Greenleaf was in play with the Greenleaf redevelopment?

·       There exists affordable housing land covenants on the Greenleaf land. This is not the declaration of trust. Does DCHA intent to remove this affordable housing land covenant? On what legal basis, does DCHA intent to argue that this affordable housing land covenant should be removed?

·       DCHA has repeatedly only agreed to restore the current number of units. Why isn't DCHA exploring innovative methods in housing finance to increase affordable housing production for the Greenleaf redevelopment?

·       Did DCHA provide HUD with accurate data for HUD to make an accurate assessment that DCHA is in compliance with the federal Moving to Work requirement on family housing or family size?

·       Did HUD make a lawful decision that DCHA is in compliance with the family housing or size requirement with Moving to Work public agencies?

·       Over 200 units, largely stemming from units with multiple bedrooms, from Arthur Cappers that was demolished twenty years ago. Is it reasonable to expect that DCHA will remain in compliance with the family housing or size requirement for Moving to Work public housing agencies? How many units are DCHA in deficit with across all properties due to units that have not been restored with redevelopment?

·       Questions emailed to DCHA executive leadership and the Board on January 19, 2021. I did not receive a response.

·       Did DCHA violate or is suspected to have violated any procurement rules in its selection of Greenleaf District Partners (Pennrose, EYA, and Bozzuto Development) as final co-developers?

·       If so, what procurement rules did it violate?

·       Are the procurement rules available on a public site or otherwise available to the public?

·       Can you send me a copy of the procurement rules that govern Greenleaf redevelopment?

·       Did any employee inform or attempt to inform the development team that procurement rules were being violated or that they suspected procurement rules were being violated?

·       What actions did DCHA leadership or the development team working on Greenleaf redevelopment do in response to an employee informing the development team or DCHA leadership that procurement rules were being violated?

·       Was any member of the procurement team dismissed unfairly for reasons related to Greenleaf redevelopment?

·       Was any member of the procurement team moved to another department unfairly for reasons related to Greenleaf redevelopment?

·       Do you believe that the request for qualifications was a competitive process that fairly assessed the qualifications of each bid?

·       Do you believe that there was a preferred application? State the preferred application.

·       Do you believe that an application was established as preferred prior to a formal evaluation of applications? Why do you feel this?

·       Was there a formal and fair evaluation of the qualifications of each application?

·       Do you feel that an independent auditor would find that DCHA selected the most qualified applicants to submit a request for proposals?

·       Can you send me a copy of each request for qualification?

·       Do you believe that the request for proposals was a competitive process that fairly assessed the qualification of each bid?

·       Do you believe that there was a preferred application? State the preferred application and why.

·       Do you believe that an application was established as preferred prior to a formal evaluation of applications? Why do you feel this?

·       Was there a formal and fair evaluation of the qualifications of each application?

·       Do you feel that an independent auditor would find that DCHA selected the most qualified applicant?

·       Can you send me a copy of each application?

·       Why do you think Greenleaf District Partners (Pennrose, EYA, and Bozzuto Development) was selected as the final co-developers?

·       In October, the Board rejected a resolution to select Greenleaf District Partners (Pennrose, EYA, and Bozzuto Development). DCHA leadership had not shared information with the Board on how it reached this decision.

·       Do you feel that DCHA executives did not want to share this information in October because it wanted to conceal information that would undermine a claim that it selected the most qualified applicant?

·       Are you aware of any quid pro quo related to DCHA’s selection of Pennrose, EYA, and Bozzuto?

·       Does DCHA have a code of conduct or ethics document concerning DCHA employees’ vendor relations?

·       Are you aware that any rules were broken based on this code of conduct? Describe.

·       Can DCHA employees receive cash, gift cards, or gifts worth more than $25 from a developer representative?

·       Are you aware that developers gave any DCHA employee or their family member money, gift cards, or any item or service worth more than $25?

·       Are you aware of any DCHA employee or their family member receiving money or any item or servicevalued at more  than $500?

·       Other than Greenleaf redevelopment, are you aware of any shared business associations between DCHA employees or their family members and a representative from a private developer?

·       Did a private developer give money, gift cards, or any item worth more than $25 to an entity to which a DCHA employee is connected such as a school or non-profit?

·       Do you believe the mayor or any representative from a DC agency pressured DCHA to select Pennrose, EYA, and Bozzuto?

·       Was there any strong suggestion from the major or any representation from a DC agency that Pennrose, EYA, and Bozzuto should be selected other than for reasons unrelated to qualifications?

·       What is the approximate value of land where Greenleaf currently sites? Given the value of the land, why isn’t DCHA considering self-development?

·       In 2018, (former) Commissioner Vann-Ghasri, said that she did not believe that Greenleaf Gardens (the townhouses between M St and I St) should be redeveloped. Do you know why she would have said that?

·       Is DCHA aware that the land under Greenleaf is likely contaminated?

·       What percentage of current Greenleaf resident will likely be in the redeveloped property once the project is complete?

• 0-10%

• 11-25%

• 26-40%

• 41-55%

• 56-70%

• 70%+

[1] Southwest Voice conducted a phone interview with a whistleblower associated with the senior leadership for the District of Columbia Housing Authority (DCHA). The whistleblower published their allegations of procurement violations in Southwest Voice.

[2] “Provides replacement housing for all the existing public units within the development or the immediate Southwest neighborhood” (DC Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 19 Lower Anacostia Waterfront/ Near Southwest Area Element)

Editor Revises Request to Council for Investigation of Real Page with Crucial New Information

Southwest Voice revised its request to DC Council Housing Chair Robert White to include crucial new information on Real Page. The letter asks for a wide-ranging investigation to examine unlawful practices against housing voucher holders and racial discrimination.

June 10, 2024

Dear Councilmember R. White,

I am writing with a crucial addendum to my prior letter.

I wish to share more information about Real Page that I believe should be the basis for wide-ranging Council and OAG investigations. Real Page's practices raise issues about fair housing and racial discrimination. Real Page was also the company that initially denied my application in 2016 for my current residence. I received a denial letter from Capitol Park Plaza and Twins that purported that I had a criminal record from the Georgia Department of Corrections. I was instructed to call Real Page to appeal the decision. After I appealed, they retracted the denial (see letter). Real Page included information in its report that was false and did not cross-check data with my date of birth, my middle name, known addresses, or Social Security number - all details in my housing application. Although they claim LeasingDesk actually conducted the investigation, you can see @realpage.com as the corresponding email address.

Real Page needs immediate legislative and prosecutorial attention.

Sincerely, 

Chris

Unlawful Practices Likely Widespread in Housing Market: Oversight Needed

June 5, 2024
Open Letter to DC Council Committee on Housing

Dear Councilmember R. White,
I would like to thank you and your staff for your support and guidance in helping me with Mrs. [redacted]’ housing matter. I want to commend Mr. Sean Cuddihy who has been immensely helpful and responsive. Mrs. [redacted] has now been approved for housing, though she remains homeless. The matter should be fully resolved in early July – her move-in date.

I am writing to convey that the District has major barriers and dysfunction in the housing ecosystem that warrants intense and sustained oversight by the Housing Committee. In my judgment, the system is broken. Major reforms are warranted.

Areas of Needed Oversight

• • • • Legislative Oversight of Executive Oversight of District Contractors – I am writing to strongly encourage DC Council to exercise stronger oversight of District agencies that are responsible for oversight and management of contractors in the housing ecosystem. As I have documented in my email chain for nearly three months, there are salient issues regarding: 1) contractors’ lack of communication with clients, 2) lack of follow-up, 3) disconnected phone lines to reach the contracting agency, 4) lack of professionalism (e.g., online content of excessive video gaming during the work week), 5) secondary effects causing missed deadlines for financial support (e.g., ERAP), 6) the role and practices of DHS in the application approval process, 7) lack of DHS personnel or contacts who can answer questions from housing voucher holders, and 8) the quality and conditions of contracts with contractors in the housing ecosystem (e.g., lacking direct, measurable, and accountable language on service quality).
        
        

      • Housing Provider’s Denial of Housing Application in Violation of District Law – I have evidence of what I believe is a housing provider’s violation of District law on the limited use of credit history to evaluate and deny a housing application. I have encountered many cases in which voucher holders have confided in me that they have been denied housing based on credit history. I believe that these practices are widespread and unlawful.
        
        

      • Request OAG Investigation into Real Page – In November 2023, the DC Office of Attorney General announced its court filing against several defendants that included Real Page. I am writing to request stronger legislative oversight and an OAG investigation into Real Page on another issue. When I spoke with the housing provider who initially denied Mrs. [redacted]’ application, I was directed to call Real Page to ask for the report findings because they had conducted the screening and made a decision to which the housing provider deferred. I believe that the denial was unlawful. The housing provider reevaluated, then reversed the decision following contacts from Mr. [redacted] and myself. The DC Committee on Housing should ask for an intense investigation into companies affiliated with housing providers to determine the extent of unlawful practices that deny housing applications.

Poor People’s Campaign: A National Call For Moral Revival

For Immediate Release: Monday, June 10, 2024

Media Contact: Joe Ward, jward@breachrepairers.org, 929.475.2051; 

Yolanda Barksdale, ybarksdale@breachrepairers.org, 973.703.7156

Faith Leaders Hold Press Conference to Announce New Mobilization Partners and Updates About Upcoming National Mass Assembly & Moral March in Washington D.C. 

National Faith Leaders will announce new partners joining more than 25 national organizations that are mobilizing for the June 29th “Mass Poor People’s & Low-Wage Workers Assembly & Moral March on Washington D.C. & to the Polls.”

The Poor People’s Campaign calls on local and national governments and institutions to embrace a 17-Point Agenda of policies and demands aimed at  ending the crisis of death by poverty and low wealth, which kills 800 people daily.

–

WASHINGTON – On Monday, June 10th at 10 a.m. ET, national faith leaders, including Poor People’s Campaign Co-Chairs Bishop William J. Barber, II and Rev. Dr. Liz Theoharis, will co-host a national press conference to announce new mobilization partners for the June 29th “Mass Poor People’s & Low-Wage Workers Assembly & Moral March on Washington D.C. and to the Polls”. These new partners will join a growing coalition of more than 25 national organizations that are mobilizing for the gathering. The press conference will be held at First Congregational Church Sanctuary, 945 G Street, NW at 10 a.m.  The event will be livestreamed.

That evening, faith leaders will co-host the “Moral Revival: Clergy-led Prayers and Assembly for Mobilization,” service to discuss DMV mobilization efforts for the Poor People’s Campaign’s June 29th gathering. The prayer service and assembly will take place at Ambassador Baptist Church, 1412 Minnesota Ave, SE at 7 p.m. The event will be livestreamed.

The Poor People’s Campaign will continue hosting events across the country to build awareness about the crisis of death by poverty in the U.S., and to urge all candidates running for elected office in 2024 and beyond to embrace a 17-Point Agenda of policies and demands aimed at eliminating poverty and low wealth. The crisis of death by poverty in the U.S. kills 800 people daily, amounting to 295,000 lives lost annually. It is an unnecessary and abolishable reality. In survey after survey, the overwhelming majority of Americans want living wages, union rights, paid family leave, universal access to healthcare, action on the climate crisis, voting rights protections, equal protection under the law, and tax policy that makes the wealthy pay their fair share.

The press conference, prayer service, and other upcoming events will amplify the voices of impacted people and the need for candidates to center the issues that affect the over 135 million poor and low-wealth people in the United States. Poor and low-wage voters constitute at least 30% of the electorate in the majority of states. In so-called battleground states, it’s close to and over 40% of the electorate. 

PRESS CONFERENCE DETAILS

WHEN:

Monday, June 10, 10 a.m. ET

WHERE: 

First Congregational Church Sanctuary, 945 G Street, NW and via livestream:https://www.poorpeoplescampaign.org/livestream/ 

WHO:

• Poor People’s Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival (national and Washington D.C. coordinating committee)

• Bishop William J. Barber, II, DMin, National Co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign; President and Senior Lecturer of Repairers of the Breach; Professor of Public Theology and Public Policy and Founding Director of the Center for Public Theology and Public Policy at Yale Divinity School (virtual)

• Rev. Dr. Liz Theoharis, National Co-chair of the Poor People's Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival, Executive Director, Kairos Center (virtual)

• Rev. Dr. Teresa “Terri” Hord Owens, General Minister and President, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in the U.S. and Canada (virtual)

• Rev. Bronwen Boswell, Acting State Clerk of the General Assembly, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (virtual)

• Rev. William H. Lamar, IV, Pastor, Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church, Washington D.C. (in-person)

• Rev. Dr. Ken Brooker Langston, Executive Director, Disciples Center for Public Witness (in-person)

• Rev. Dr. Karen Georgia Thompson, General Minister and President, United Church of Christ (in-person)

• Kairos Center for Religions, Rights, and Social Justice

• Repairers of the Breach

PRAYER SERVICE & ASSEMBLY DETAILS

WHEN: 

Monday, June 10, 7 p.m.

WHERE: 

Ambassador Baptist Church, 1412 Minnesota Ave, SE and via livestream: https://www.poorpeoplescampaign.org/livestream/ 

WHO: 

• Poor People’s Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival (national and Washington D.C. coordinating committee)

• Bishop William J. Barber, II, DMin, National Co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign; President and Senior Lecturer of Repairers of the Breach; Professor of Public Theology and Public Policy and Founding Director of the Center for Public Theology and Public Policy at Yale Divinity School (virtual)

• Rev. Dr. Liz Theoharis, National Co-chair of the Poor People's Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival, Executive Director, Kairos Center (virtual)

• Kairos Center for Religions, Rights, and Social Justice

• Repairers of the Breach

For more information, visit https://www.poorpeoplescampaign.org/mm2024/.

**For additional information or media inquires, please email jward@breachrepairers.org** 

###

Exclusive: Southwest Voice Spots Ward 7 Voting Irregularities in DC Board of Elections Site

The Southwest Voice X page (formerly Twitter) provides video evidence that Kimball Elementary, a voting center in Ward 7, does not appear on the Board of Elections (BOE) website containing election results. The BOE website lists Kimball Elementary as a primary voter center. 

In addition, X user @gsonnemann also raised an issue of Precinct 81 not showing #ward7 councilor results, suggesting a major omission for a close race. It is not clear whether the Ward 7 race appeared on the Precinct 81 ballot.

Marbury Plaza Tenants and Allies Met with Attorney General and DC Council Chair Phil Mendelson 

"They are starting from a place of low standards...We are going to have this conversation from a standards standpoint," said Dr. Rhonda L. Hamilton, M.I. Mother's Keeper and Healthy D.C. & Me Leadership Coalition, Executive Director/President.

DC Office of Attorney General Has Role in Structural Racism: Challenging Suits

The DC Office of the Attorney General plays a vital role in perpetuating structural racism. This example illustrates how health inequity is reproduced. While the Attorney General feigns that there is only a rare occasion that he sees a conflict between his obligation to the District government and the public interest, it is clear that the Office of Attorney General sides too willingly with the government on matters of public health and equity. 

Background

• The government in Washington, DC has a law that it should conduct an environmental impact assessment any time it changed its Comprehensive Plan - a document guiding government policies across nearly every sector such as education, parks, climate change, and especially redevelopment.

• For 20 years, Washington, DC has seen rapid redevelopment. Brownfields and other contaminated sites have been transformed into new communities and regional entertainment sites. Many of these new sites are adjacent to low-income African Americans communities. We have occasions where the government has permitted site activation on land that qualified as a brownfield without any required mitigation on the part of developers. Environmental regulation and legislative oversight have been spotty. The US Attorney has now formed a unit on environmental racism that occurs in the District.

• The government did not conduct an environmental impact assessment when it amended the Comprehensive Plan in 2021. The last assessment was in 2006 and included a 300+ page report. The government should have also provided regular progress report on implementation of the Comprehensive to highlight what has resulted - both good and bad. It did not do these reports consistent with the law either.

Legal Reasoning, the Office of Attorney General, and a Lawsuit 

• Several residents in DC filed suit against the District in 2021 because changes to the Comprehensive Plan were not consistent with the law on an environmental impact assessment. The District tried to pass off a 6-page document as an environmental impact assessment in order to rush through increase land density changes to benefit developers.

• After the complaint was filed, the Office of Attorney General immediately filed a motion to dismiss that was denied. It later filed other motions and responses claiming the following at different points. This is government.

Claims of OAG

• The Council is the lawmaking body. If it passes a law that does not appear to be consistent with current law, it only means that it is making new law. 

• The law on conducting environment impact assessments was passed by a previous legislature and does not bind the current legislation.

• The plaintiffs had no cause of action. This means that the law did not intend for citizens to bring a suit against the government.

• A 6-page environmental impact assessment is sufficient because the law does not detail what should be a part of the assessment.

• The plaintiffs have no injuries.

• Even if the plaintiffs have injuries, those are generalized not particularized.

• Even if the plaintiffs have particularized harms, the District is not responsible for or cause them.

• Even if the plaintiffs had cognizable injuries that could be directed tied to the government, they lacked redressability, meaning that what they are asking for (for the court to determine the Comp Plan to be unlawful) cannot be given to them.

Enough! Southwest Voice Condemns the "Rawest Forms of Racism" in DC Following $20 million in Public Park Renovation Amidst Vast Inequity

May 19, 2024

I previously wrote about the $17 million investment at Randall park. The $3 million price tag for the Town Center park project between Westminster and Christ United has been announced and adds insult to injury. The District has some of the worst disparities in this country. In a recent hearing, Councilmember Henderson complained of the 20-year difference in life expectancy between the poorest and wealthiest neighborhoods. The educational gap is an utter embarrassment. The District has barely improved outcomes in 25 years and has yet to return to pre-pandemic attendance and educational outcomes. A fewer percentage of students who do enroll in college are graduating with a degree within five years. White wealth is 81x greater than Black wealth in DC. The income divide between Blacks and Whites in DC increased to $100,000 in the last decade. Already having one of the most fatal opioid overdose rates in the country, opioid overdose deaths in DC reached a record high in 2023.

A single displaced heritage tree can result in a fine upwards of $1,000s yet the District or developers pay zero consequences for Black displacement. The District is the number one city for Black displacement in the US in the 21st century - determined by combining the results of two major studies. Meanwhile, the District concedes unprecedented public dollars to corporate interests - both the District-financed baseball and soccer stadiums were the most expensive for their respective leagues when built. $500 million for Capital One Arena on top of other public financing! Any public asset from land, parks, government buildings, and schools have become the basis for corporate contract making while the material and health condition for DC's large poor and low-wealth populations hardly improves, if at all. 

The District tolerated and encouraged environmental racism in Southwest and throughout many pockets of the city - unlawfully relaxing or ignoring federal and District environmental regulation standards. Then, it refused to follow the law on environmental impact assessments when it passed the Comprehensive Plan in 2021. It allowed for an increase of 200 million square feet of land/air rights for "matter of right" development and didn't care to conduct an environmental impact assessment. The Office of Attorney General is currently misleading the court to say that DC's 6-page document was an "environmental impact assessment." It sold the undeveloped parcels at 4th and M St for less than $100. It sold the land on which The Eliot sits and did not require a single affordable housing unit. It excluded affordable housing at South Capitol and M St. Over the objection of St. Dominic's call for affordable housing on its former land prior to urban renewal, DC sold its eminent domain land at Capitol Square Place to make way for luxury townhouses. 

The District has steadily eroded the boundaries of Southwest to make way for luxury housing - placing the Wharf and Buzzard Point in their own small area plans essentially, adding a new Maryland Ave Small Area Plan, and using half of a public parcel on School St SW for a "boutique European hotel" instead of affordable housing. The District has not respected the ANC6D's wishes for preserving social diversity - consistently violating the "great weight" of ANCs. Now, the District attempts to convince the court that ANCs had no "great weight" on the 2021 Comprehensive Plan. It is again lying. The District oversaw and encouraged the slumlording and ghettoization of public housing. The District's poor planning caused declining housing quality for established residential communities because owners start divesting in basic maintenance in preparation for a sale. The Southwest neighborhood has a concentration of declining building conditions based upon an analysis of HUD multi-family inspection reports. 

The McMillan decision says that the District shares responsibility for these injuries. Council's weak oversight of DCHA directly shares responsibility for the injuries that families and households endured. The gender-based policy violence against women-led households and women resident leaders is a moral failing and structural racism of epic proportions. I saw firsthand how poor housing conditions caused a resident to relapse into drug addiction, which then made her vulnerable to male exploitation - representative of the deep racism coursing throughout the city. Just a few of years ago, former DCHA director Tyrone Garrett refused to even spend the measly $10 million that the District allocated to public housing repairs. When community benefits are negotiated, those dollars barely get to communities most in need. We have seen $250,000 allocated to a silly, simple art sculpture in Southwest when our resident councils and organizations could have put that money to better use. We have seen public housing resident councils see fewer dollars for resident participation funds because DCHA and the District have emptied public housing units. An entire building in Southwest has been emptied out following a sale that was catalyzed by concentrated development in and around Southwest! The District allowed developers to hop from one neighborhood to another engaged in social whitening. Those same developers come to Southwest and entice churches to redevelop that only invest in the minimum number of affordable housing units. The District induces moral decline in Southwest and the city. Meanwhile, the market is flooded with luxury housing, inflating housing costs throughout the city - to say nothing of the price-fixing in the rental market that has become subject of an OAG lawsuit.

This is not right. This is not just. This is racism in its rawest form.

Southwest Voice Calls on Council to Ask for Audit of Compliance with First Source Law

Letter to DC Council on May 18, 2024

Dear Committee on Executive Administration and Labor,

I have several questions related to DC's First Source compliance monitoring. I thank Dr. Rhonda Hamilton for bringing up this topic at a recent meeting. After additional research, it appears the DC's First Source law is an immensely valuable tool to narrow the divide on racial and economic inequality, if implemented and monitored. The District has a very unique position among US states to address deep inequity because the residency clause does not apply. Thus, it can prioritize District contracts to benefit DC residents. However, there are major concerns with legally required reporting, legislative oversight, transparency, and enforcement.

1. Audit - Can Council request DC Auditor's Office to audit the First Source program?
   
   

2. Semi-Annual Reports -  Where are the reports? Is DOES in compliance with the law on reporting? The District of Columbia Department of Employment Services (DOES) is required to report on First Source compliance on a semi-annual basis. The last stand-alone report that I could find available to the public was from 2020 [Link]. CM Bonds asked at the May 1 DOES oversight hearing, "Do you have plans to modernize the public data available on the website to reflect the import of first source hiring in the city?" The government witness provided no concrete details - only that modernization was a massive undertaking. Overall, legislative oversight was weak on this issue of First Source compliance.  What is compliance with the First Source Amendment Act of 2011 - loosening First Source minimums and maintaining 51% of all new hires on government contracts be District residents?
   
   

3. First Source Apprenticeship -  Where are the semi-annual reports on the apprenticeship programs? Are contractors in compliance with the apprenticeship requirement? There is an apprenticeship requirement for First Source contracts and agreements. It is not clear that this is fully enforced.
   
   

4. Non-Compliance - What are the consequences for contractors NOT meeting requirements? On the second page of executed agreements (see below), 1/3 of contractors "did not meet requirements". I cannot find a dataset on overall compliance without excessive scrolling on this page (over 1,000 pages) - need for a single downloadable spreadsheet. It does not appear in Open Data DC.
   
   

5. "In Progress" - What is "In Progress" and "Cumulative"? Most of the 10,299 First Source contracts on the executed agreements database show "in progress". What does that even mean? What is cumulative? Is the government tracking these data? What is the time period for agreements to close and a determination (e.g., met or did not meet) is made.
   
   

6. DC Residents - Why aren't DC residents getting more of the First Source positions? The government testified on May 1 that, "2430 positions were created on first source projects and contracts, with over 1300 of those new positions filled by district residents." That's only 53%.
   
   

7. Self-Reporting? - What is compliance based on? Self-report?
   
   

8. Section 3 - Where are reports on HUD Section 3 requirements? I cannot find DHCD compliance reporting of Section 3 requirements for businesses. I also cannot find DCHA's specific Section 3 reports.

Editor Mistook Email Access Log

The editor mistook his email access log to suggest improper access. He is now in full possession of knowledge about IP addresses and DC Wi-Fi and apologizes for any inconveniences. 

Editor Calls for DC Council to Address Vast Educational Disparities

Dear Committee of the Whole,

I am deeply disheartened about DC's lack of educational progress. The District has failed to tackle vast educational disparities meaningfully and consistently. Educational outcomes have barely improved in the last quarter of a century. Graduation rates are inflated and not reflective of competencies. The percentage of students that enrolls in and completes college is low and declining. 

My personal story supports that school districts can and do address educational disadvantages for low-income and first-generation college students. I do not feel, however, that my story is possible in DC. In fact, I can recall several classmates from my middle school class in Central Virginia who benefited from major educational reforms to get low-income students on an advanced track for high school and, thus, college readiness. We also had teachers who mentored us. One classmate is a college professor. Another is a civil engineer for the Commonwealth of Virginia. I will graduate in May with my PhD. In other words, there are innovative models out there that work.

The Washington Post asserts that, "The city is embracing a new “moonshot” goal to have 80 percent of high school graduates earn degrees by 2050." It would be foolhardy to trust that the District can achieve this under the current model. Major reforms are needed.

1) Significantly shrink or eliminate the number of charter schools - The charter school system has ballooned. It is far too decentralized to ensure accountability. Neither the DCPS central office nor the DC PCS Board has the set of authorities necessary for major reform. The DC PCS Board cannot even say if charter school provided the teacher raise that Council approved.

2) Remove Mayoral Control - This was a rash decision to give control over to the mayor during the pandemic, complicated by Grosso's ineffective oversight as Education Committee chair. The politics need to be taken out of DC education.

3) Let Teachers Teach and Mentor - The current system is too punitive to teachers when confounders like neighborhood effects, poverty, and violence are exerting major influences on educational outcomes. I went through school when it was common for teachers to have 15+ years of experience. These teachers made great schools, programs, and loved teaching, mentoring, and support. These teachers who are committed to the profession are your most valuable asset. This also means that the District should phase out programs that heavily recruit transient teachers (e.g., Teach for America model).

4) Simplify the Curriculum and Focus on the Basics - Rather than DC trying to position itself as appearing to be ahead of other states in some areas, it needs to focus on the fundamentals before adding another requirement (e.g., financial literacy). Students are struggling with the basics - reading, writing, math, and science. That should be the focus.

5) Trade School or College Readiness - The dual enrollment nursing prep program is seeing high attendance rates. That is not surprising. It provides students with a focused, skills-based curriculum in addition to regular classes. All students need 1) a skilled trade by graduation that translates to current job market needs or 2) college readiness. I do not think that 80% traditional college attainment by 2050 is feasible or desirable. We must recognize the value of trade school, which can put disadvantaged students on a middle class pathway as well. A major missed opportunity to not prepare students to benefit from 20 years of the gentrification economy, especially blue collar job opportunities and entrepreneurship. We heavily relied on outside labor to the detriment of DC residents.

6) Addressing the Confounders - I never grew up in a neighborhood with gun violence. We were poor but had safe neighborhoods. Neighborhood effects are known as a major influence on educational outcomes. The District needs to do a much better job of ensuring safe, upwardly mobile, and strong communities. A policy and moral shift is needed.

7) Program Evaluation and Evidence-Based Reasoning - The District lacks adequate educational program evaluation and evidence-based reasoning. More in the email below.

Message to CMs Henderson and Parker on March 1, 2024

Dear Councilmembers Parker and Henderson,

I thoroughly enjoyed your questions during today's oversight hearing. I am writing to request a copy of the study about the high-impact tutoring program, once available. 

Here are concerns that I have based on direct observation of high-impact tutoring programs and research knowledge. I do have a concern that data may be over-interpreted.

• Self-selection bias - I am concerned that the high-impact tutoring data could suffer from self-selection bias. Those students who participate in the program are not representative and may be predisposed to high-impact tutoring engagement. 

• Gender Difference - I observed an immense gender difference in high-impact tutoring programs. Females far outnumbered males. Females were also drawn to the program because it provided protection against sexual predation ("safe space") had no program existed. This is an important contextual factor.

• At-Risk - I observed that young Black males were not engaged in the high-impact program, opting for after-school sports. This tension is an important contextual factor.

• Statistical Explanations - We have a statistical phenomenon called mean regression. Following the pandemic, performance metrics are highly likely to return to pre-pandemic rates, regardless of the intensity of program intervention. What share that accounts for in improvements...I would need to get into the literature.

• No Experimental Model - To truly assess causality between test scores and high impact tutoring, it would require an experimental model - control and intervention groups. OSSE will rely on non-experimental analysis, which carries many weaknesses. To lessen bias, comparing like groups (e.g., students, schools, etc) at pre and post are important due to the risk of bias.

• High Variation - There is likely to be high variation in programming, curriculum, implementation, and quality across tutoring programs. In terms of economies of scale, OSSE would need to know what precisely led to increases in score for data results to be meaningful for future program delivery.

• Controlling Variables - Often in research, we control for certain variables in research (e.g., sex, age, race). While this can improve power, it can cause biased estimates. It can also limit external validity. For example, controlling for the effect of race on an outcome of interest can improve internal validity, but the association between race and income cannot be eliminated in real-world program planning.

Message to Council on October 17, 2023

Dear Councilmembers,

I strongly encourage a more meaningful bill than the one proposed by Chairman Mendelson and Councilmember Parker to address deep educational gaps. To advance educational reform, a broader scope and evidence-based practice are needed. Here are resources from the education literature. The articles can be downloaded using the following Dropbox link.

• The Adverse Effects of Economic Inequality on Educational Outcomes: An Examination of PISA Scores, 2000–2015 by Thorson and Gearhart - They found that a country’s level of economic inequality has large, negative effects on its student academic achievement. Implication for DC: Monitoring and balancing economic policy with educational outcomes warrant more resources and cross-agency collaboration.
  
  

• A New Model for Student Support in High-Poverty Urban Elementary Schools: Effects on Elementary and Middle School Academic Outcomes by Walsh et al - Discusses one of the first evaluations of a comprehensive student support intervention (City Connects) for non-academic barriers to learning. Implication for DC: This may be a good model for DC.
  
  

• Effects of accumulated environmental, social and host exposures on early childhood educational outcomes by Bravo and Miranda - Key adverse host, environmental, and social exposures accrue disproportionately to non-Hispanic Black children. They analyzed the association of economically disadvantaged highest quintile of racial isolation, blood lead levels, birth weight percentile, and mothers who reported smoking during pregnancy.  Implication for DC: DC should be attuned to the effects of these exposures and increase resources accordingly.
  
  

• Neighborhoods, Schools, and Academic Achievement A Formal Mediation Analysis of Contextual Effects on Reading and Mathematics Abilities by Wodtke and Parbst - Exposure to an advantaged rather than disadvantaged neighborhood significantly improves academic achievement. Contrary to expectations, however, we find no evidence that school poverty mediates these effects because the differences in school poverty linked to differences in neighborhood context appear to have no appreciable impact on achievement.  Implication for DC: It's not about the school - it's about the neighborhood. DC needs more attention to the neighborhood influence on educational outcomes.
  
  

• Why Does It Take a Village? The mediation of neighborhood effects on educational achievement by Ainsworth - the current study finds not only that neighborhood characteristics predict educational outcomes, theorists have proposed several mediating processes, including collective socialization, social control, social capital, perception of opportunity, and institutional characteristics. The current study reveals that these mediators account for about 40% of the neighborhood effect on educational achievement, with collective socialization having the strongest influence.  Implication for DC: There are factors associated with neighborhood effects that are modifiable.

The District Failed Relisha, Age 8. It is Still Failing.

The Washington Post recently revisited the disappearance of Relisha, age 8. She and her family where sheltered at DC General. Relisha was last seen on camera after a janitor had taken her. “The children at D.C. General were neglected many years before Relisha Rudd went missing,” she said. “She was so symbolic of all the gaps in the safety net and all the ways we collectively have failed vulnerable children in our community,” according to the Post article. 

Southwest Voice is sharing a letter to DC Council in July 2023 to show how the system remains deeply broken. Two children, 6 and 8 years of age, were found walking aimlessly in Southwest. Resident leaders worked to locate the parents. In the process, major gaps in DC's shelter policies and practices were found, including its accountability for children and parental supervision. The letter also discusses scratches that raised major alarm.

July 10, 2023

Dear DC Council Committee on Health,

I am writing with grave concern about the wraparound services at the women's shelter in Southwest - The Aya. I pose several structural/policy questions at the end of this email.

1) Community leaders and I recently worked to locate the parent of two lost children outside my residence at Capitol Park Plaza and Twins. These children were 6 and 8 years of age. After making many phone calls and combing through social media, we located their mother who was a resident at The Aya. They initially did not want to take us to where they lived. A community person said that they saw the kids taking items from the Safeway. Eventually, the little girl gave us their mother's name and we surmised that they stayed at The Aya. As I understand, these kids were part of a set of 9 siblings housed there. I spoke with the program manager to convey my deep concerns about the kids roaming the neighborhood without adult supervisor. I also spoke to the mother when she arrived on the scene. We exchanged phone numbers. I asked her to reach out to me if she needed resources.

2) Since that incident, I have seen the children on two occasions. Once, five of the siblings were walking near the library without adult supervision. The second was with the mother and children sitting outside the library.

3) On Saturday, I ran into two boys from this sibling set outside of the SW library - one that I had met earlier (above). I noticed that they had rashes all over their body - arms, legs, face. The boy from (1) had what appeared to be two human scratches on this face that were about three inches long and parallel. Some of the rashes and bumps were open wounds, assumedly from scratching. Some of the bumps looked like bed bug bites. I asked the manager is the shelter had a bed bug problem. He said, "Not to my knowledge." The boy did not have these rashes when I saw him just the week prior. I asked the boys if they had eaten. They said only French toast.

I led them back to the shelter out of concern. I met a manager at the front door. To my astonishment, he explained to the boys that they were not allowed to return because their mother was not there. As I continued the discussion, I turned around and noticed that the boys had left. To where, I had no idea. I had asked them to stay close by. I asked the manager, "Doesn't the city provide funding for wraparound services?" He only knew that a caseworker was involved. As far as I am aware, the manager did not intend to call the mother. I called and spoke to the police after calling 911 when I arrived home (across the street).

Structural Questions

• What funding is the District providing to The Aya for child health and protection?

• Is it acceptable for minors to be unsupervised and prevented from entry into the shelter when their mother is not there? This is just not an acceptable practice.

• If something were to happen to these kids, whose responsibility is it - the District which prevents minors from entering the shelter or the parent/guardian? I think the District shares some responsibility.

• Do wraparound service reimbursement provide for connection to childcare? Is connection to childcare and safe harboring part of the responsibility of case workers?

• Why aren't these minors connected to summer camp and childcare services?

Sincerely,
C. Williams

Southwest Voice Editor Testified Before DC Tax Commission on November 6, 2023

I have several concerns and proposed revisions. 

The Commission did not work with the Mayor’s Office of Racial Equity (ORE). That concerns me immensely because equity experts have not reviewed the proposals, particularly under the racial equity theme. That should change going forward.

DC is one of the wealthiest US cities. The Commission is proposing many tax increases, but immense wealth has not translated to meaningful gains in social and racial equity. DC routinely wastes taxpayer money. The Commission should consider yearly taxpayer rebates to disadvantaged populations or nonprofits where the District cannot drive down disparities.

The individual income tax rates should create two taxable income brackets from $60,000-$250,000 into two brackets. Individuals making $60,000 versus $250,000 are in starkly different economic positions. 

I oppose the tax on multifamily buildings, as written. It should keep current property taxes for affordable buildings with 70% or more of households at 60% MFI or below. Otherwise, landlords are likely to pass on these costs to residents, increasing rent burden.

Economic mobility is challenging for DC residents, especially transitioning from public and subsidized housing to self-sufficiency. The tax code should reduce the tax burden associated with moving toward self-sufficiency.

TIFs are self-serving for the rich, as we saw with the Wharf. TIFs have enabled developments to divert property taxes away from the general budget in order to subsidize their own development. Renegotiating DC’s TIFs, as we see in other cities, would be a major source of revenue and rightsize injustices.

Editor Forwards DC Council Evidence-Based Data from Education Literature 

The District has struggled with proper planning and data-driven analysis, as we discussed in a prior issue. Education is no different. Prompted by a Council bill on addressing the needs and low performance of DC's bottom 5% of schools, the Southwest Voice editor-in-chief encouraged the District to build solutions based on evidence and the literature. 

Dear Councilmembers,

I strongly encourage a more meaningful bill than the one proposed by Chairman Mendelson and Councilmember Parker to address deep educational gaps. To advance educational reform, a broader scope and evidence-based practice are needed. Here are resources from the education literature. The articles can be downloaded using the following Dropbox link.

• The Adverse Effects of Economic Inequality on Educational Outcomes: An Examination of PISA Scores, 2000–2015 by Thorson and Gearhart - They found that a country’s level of economic inequality has large, negative effects on its student academic achievement. Implication for DC: Monitoring and balancing economic policy with educational outcomes warrant more resources and cross-agency collaboration.

• A New Model for Student Support in High-Poverty Urban Elementary Schools: Effects on Elementary and Middle School Academic Outcomes by Walsh et al - Discusses one of the first evaluations of a comprehensive student support intervention (City Connects) for non-academic barriers to learning. Implication for DC: This may be a good model for DC.

• Effects of accumulated environmental, social and host exposures on early childhood educational outcomes by Bravo and Miranda - Key adverse host, environmental, and social exposures accrue disproportionately to non-Hispanic Black children. They analyzed the association of economically disadvantaged highest quintile of racial isolation, blood lead levels, birth weight percentile, and mothers who reported smoking during pregnancy.  Implication for DC: DC should be attuned to the effects of these exposures and increase resources accordingly.

• Neighborhoods, Schools, and Academic Achievement A Formal Mediation Analysis of Contextual Effects on Reading and Mathematics Abilities by Wodtke and Parbst - Exposure to an advantaged rather than disadvantaged neighborhood significantly improves academic achievement. Contrary to expectations, however, we find no evidence that school poverty mediates these effects because the differences in school poverty linked to differences in neighborhood context appear to have no appreciable impact on achievement.  Implication for DC: It's not about the school - it's about the neighborhood. DC needs more attention to the neighborhood influence on educational outcomes.

• Why Does It Take a Village? The mediation of neighborhood effects on educational achievement by Ainsworth - the current study finds not only that neighborhood characteristics predict educational outcomes, theorists have proposed several mediating processes, including collective socialization, social control, social capital, perception of opportunity, and institutional characteristics. The current study reveals that these mediators account for about 40% of the neighborhood effect on educational achievement, with collective socialization having the strongest influence.  Implication for DC: There are factors associated with neighborhood effects that are modifiable.

Sincerely,

Chris Williams

Editor-in-chief, Southwest Voice

Special Report: Census Tracts with >70 Black Population Carry Higher Disease Burden, Reflecting Apartheid Adjacency

 Southwest Voice recently conducted an analysis showing that the most populous Black Census tracts in DC shoulder immense health burdens. Fifty-eight (58) of the 179 Census tracts have a population of 70% or greater Black residents and contain 29% of the District's population. Yet, these tracts make up 46% of all DC residents who have experienced a stroke, 44% of all of those in DC with diabetes, 43% of all COPD sufferers, and 40% of those with kidney disease. Other diseases were also unevenly distributed compared to Census tracts' residents' share of the city population: heart disease (39%), high blood pressure (39%), asthma (34%), 7 or more poor mental health days in a month (35%), obesity (37%), no leisure physical activity (41%), and currently smoking (40%). Data analysis relied on the 2021 CDC Places estimates.

Southwest Voice previously discussed apartheid adjacency in Washington, DC in our September issue. These data findings support the longstanding neglect of city leadership to attend to unmet social, economic, and health needs of large minority areas of the city, particularly in Wards 7 and 8. The map below shows the Census tracts with 70% or greater percentage of Black (green) and White populations (purple). Neighborhoods that are East of the River or in the city's East End, along with areas in the vicinity of Fort Lincoln, Gateway, Carver Langston, have super majority-minority Census tracts. The Census tract containing public housing in the Southwest neighborhood also appears.

The District is without a strategic and sustained focus on narrowing racial health gaps. To achieve health equity, it must account for the public health economy, which encompasses the performance of the growth economy, skills-match for jobs, improving DC public school system, and curbing the excesses of the gentrification economy. It must seek to heavily invest long-term in public health and community health workforce funding to reach deep into communities for health promotion, coalition-building, and new models of community- and home-based healthcare. Hospital accountability for community health outcomes, as required under IRS regulations, is wanting.

The city is on par with other cities such as Atlanta, Baltimore, Memphis, and Philadelphia, that appear to have allowed deep structural inequity to flourish among the most populous Black neighborhoods (Table 1). The legacy of US segregation and political attitudes and inattentive leadership over decades help to explain these findings.

For 30 Years, DC Failed to Follow Law on Publishing Election Results in DC Register 

"I am writing to see if you can help me understand where I can find the DC Board of Elections published election results in the DC Register as required under DC law..."

An email from this paper in February 2022 to the DC Office of Attorney General sought answers on the absence of election results in the DC Register. The Board of Elections is required to publish the results of each election and the nominees or winners in the DC Register. It failed to do so for nearly 30 years until prompted by that email. Results from 1992 through June 2022 were finally published in the DC Register in July 2022.

This incident reflects the dire state of governance within both the executive and legislative branches of government. The Board of Elections went decades without publishing in the DC Register, except for a brief period between 2008-2010. The DC Council did not exercise adequate legislative oversight throughout the 30-year period. The implications of this story go well beyond an accidental technicality. This case exposes the District to legal challenges and reveals needed reforms to the DC Home Rule Charter, starting with a larger legislature.

READ MORE

Deep Racial Spatial Inequality in Four Graphs by Census Tracts in DC

Data obtained from five-year estimates of the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2016-2020 American Community Survey (Policy Map) show stark racial difference in household median income. Census tracts (n=83) with majority white populations are on average $18,700 above the median citywide household income of $93,500 (Table 1). Census tracts (n=81) with majority black populations are on average $10,000 below the median citywide household income, excluding two outliers (Table 2). Census tract with no distinct majority (n=38) are on average $21,000 above the median citywide household income, excluding two outliers (Table 3). Table 2 illustrates the household median income for all 202 Census tracts with available data (Table 4).

Requesting Oversight of DC's "Smart City" Programs

Dear Councilmembers, 

I am writing with urgency to request oversight or an independent OAG or OIG investigation of DC's "Smart City" program. I recently found out that the District has the smart city technology. Advocates have raised serious concerns around privacy rights. I encourage you to research this because DC has a program that is operating without much oversight or public transparency. I had never heard of it until yesterday.

The District's program appears to involve data collection through digital kiosks, public wifi, and "various sources". I cannot make heads or tails of how this technology is being used specifically in the District. DC's smart city page is non-descript - http://open.dc.gov/smart-city. (This government page shows as "not secure" for me).

You may recall that I published a story on CRISP sounding the alarm on the possibility of a serious data breach. https://www.southwestvoicedc.com/crisp As I recall, that data breach occurred several months after my reporting and exposed a vast amount of personal data, including congressional representatives' and senators'. I ask that you look into this.

Sincerely, 

Chris Williams

About Smart City Technology

Washington, DC is using smart city technology to improve the quality of life for its residents, enhance economic growth, and address city challenges. The Smart City Initiative is a collaborative effort led by the Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO) and involves partnerships between city agencies, the federal government, universities, business improvement districts, and the tech community[1].

Some of the smart city projects in Washington, DC include:

1. Smart streetlights: The city is converting all its streetlights to energy-efficient LED technology with remote monitoring and control capabilities. This aims to reduce energy consumption by more than 50%, optimize maintenance operations, and enable safer, more connected communities[7].

2. Digital kiosks and free public Wi-Fi: Washington, DC is working on providing free public Wi-Fi and installing digital kiosks to enhance the citizen experience and improve access to information and services[3].

3. Pennsylvania Avenue 2040 (PA2040): Launched in 2016, this smart city initiative focuses on enhancing public safety and introducing other smart city solutions without compromising citizen privacy. The project includes the deployment of OCTO-sponsored outdoor DC-Net Wi-Fi and remotely managed, sensor-based LED streetlights[5].

4. Data-sharing platform: The city is developing a platform to gather and analyze data from various sources, enabling it to make more informed decisions and improve city services[3].

These projects are part of Washington, DC's broader smart city strategy, which aims to leverage technology to create a more livable, sustainable, and economically vibrant city[3].

Citations:

[1] http://open.dc.gov/smart-city/

[2] http://open.dc.gov/smart-city/what.html

[3] https://www.aboutsmartcities.com/smart-city-washington/

[4] https://www.smartcitiesworld.net/news/news/washington-dc-progresses-smart-city-transformation-plans-7882

[5] https://the-atlas.com/projects/how-dc---s-smart-city-initiatives-don---t-sacrifice-privacy-for-safety-4

[6] https://www.smartcityworks.org/smart-region-initiative

[7] https://www.digi.city/articles/2022/7/18/washington-dc-progresses-smart-city-transformation-plans

[8] https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/14/fact-sheet-administration-announces-new-smart-cities-initiative-help

Only One Conclusion: DC Resembles Apartheid 

Housing Code Violations and Change in Black Populations in Census Tract

The District Turned Southwest into a Perpetual Construction Zone, Residents Met with Harms and Hazards

The District has turned the Southwest-Waterfront neighborhood into a perpetual construction zone associated with noise and air pollution. Safety conditions for bikers and pedestrians are compromised with changing road signs and eliminated bike lanes. - Southwest Voice DC https://www.southwestvoicedc.com/ | Video taken on August 7, 2023

Southwest DC Sees Concentration of Declining Building Conditions Based on HUD Physical Inspection Scores

For Immediate Release
Contact: info@southwestvoicedc.com

August 6, 2023

The Southwest neighborhood has a concentration of declining building conditions based upon an analysis of HUD multi-family inspection reports. HUD assesses the physical condition of all HUD-related multifamily projects and assigns a score from zero to 100, with 100 being the best. The District of Columbia has 17 sites that have inspection scores that declined by 18 points or more between the most recent inspection and its third most recent inspection. Three sites in Southwest - Capitol Park Plaza and Twins, Tel Court Cooperative, and St. James Mutual Home - make up 18% of the city's properties with the most declining inspection scores. The 17 sites are 15% (n=113) of the analytic sample. The number of worst scoring properties varied by ward: Ward 8 (n=5), Ward 6 (n=3), Ward 7 (n=3), Ward 1 (n=3), Ward 5 (n=2), and Ward 2 (n=1).

Properties with the same address, although different names, were counted as one. Sites with two addresses for the same property were counted once. Sites without a third most recent inspection (n=7) were not included. This HUD dataset does not include public housing. The District's ward finder tool was used to determine the ward.

Mow the Lawn: Compounding Indignities in Public Housing

August 4, 2023

Dear DCHA Officials, 

Subsequent to my last email, I learned that DCHA staff are mowing the lawn today because there is an upcoming visit by a prominent public official(s). They also believe that residents are responsible for mowing their own lawns unless they are senior or with disabilities. They believe that this information appears in residents' leases at cost. I cannot verify at this time, but this is NOT covered in the ACOP. That cost appears to be $50 to borrow a DCHA lawnmower. No lawn mowers are on-site. For obvious reason, this is an untenable position for property maintenance. There is much confusion about whether this policy exists.

I ask that public housing communities are treated equal to all resident groups in the District, consistent with the law and human decency.

Sincerely, 

Chris Williams

August 4, 2023

Dear DCHA Officials, 

I am writing to again convey my deep dissatisfaction at the indignities that public housing residents suffer. The whole of the Housing Authority seem exempt from tenant laws and resident protection. You know well the conditions of the properties and displacement record. I wish to discuss the mowing issue.

I have spoken to many families, including the resident councils, at Greenleaf to understand why DCHA is not mowing the lawn across the property. They feel that it is part of a systematic pattern of mistreatment and human degradation. I agree. Grass grows to incredible length (see below). I have observed mowing on occasion, but it is always a handful of families that get their lawn mowed. From my balcony yesterday, I saw a man mowing the tall grass at one unit with a household mower. The grass was too tall and it caused his mower to malfunction. He appeared to be the same individual each time. This suggests that ONE INDIVIDUAL has the mowing contract or has the responsibility for mowing. I finally saw today the appropriate mower to use - a riding mower at Greenleaf. This time is was a different individual, but there was no team of people, no commercial company...no rakes, or bags. The tall dense grass was a challenge for his mower.

What is going on? Must public housing residents continue to experience compounded misery and indignity? I have never seen in all my experience, a government treat a group of people so badly so often. 

~Chris Williams

Southwest Voice Editor Puts Question on DC-directed Structural Racism to DC Mayor in Press Conference on New Police Chief

July 17, 2023

The question to @MayorBowser was clear during her press conference announcing Patricia Smith as the new police chief. She deflected. The city has deep racial disparities, made worse because of DC policies. The economic and social context matter. We cannot expect change as long as structural racism & root causes are ignored as problems.

I am testifying on Thursday to oppose DC's reparations bill. My personal perspective is that it makes so little sense for the District to move on this at this time when it has been responsible for strengthening structural racism and the legacy of slavery. Instead reparations should be directed at the contemporary populations for which the District does share responsibility for their harm and abridgement of constitutional and civil rights. For starters, here are some populations deserving of reparations.

• Gentrification - Forced and coerced physical, emotional, and cultural forms of displacement are a legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, urban renewal ("Negro removal"), American Indian removal. Displaced and existing populations in gentrified areas should be compensated.

• DC Lead Water Crisis - The DC lead water crisis in the 2000s was 20-30 times worse than the Flint water crisis yet has been minimized as a historical footnote. There was never a victims fund. The DC Water Authority (now DC Water) misled the public and outright lied. A congressional investigation proved this to be true.

• Environmental Racism - Mendelson called Buzzard Point in Southwest a "classic example of environmental racism". Those SW families have received nil compensation.

• Policy Violence Against Black Women and Families in Public Housing - The ghettoization and displacement of public housing residents formed the highest and most acute forms of racism in DC policy.

• Life Expectancy - DC has more than a 10-year difference in life expectancy between Black and Whites. The latest research is showing that this divide is growing. Racial health equity is not a priority in the District. All African Americans should benefit from reparations due to severe and chronic neglect to implement policies across government to address this deep chasm. 

• Income Inequality - During the Bowser administration, DC income inequality based on Black-White median household income grew by $25,000 in 8 years. The racial income difference now stands at $100,000. 

• Civil Rights Violations - The discriminatory effect of the totality of District policies in the last two decades constitutes an egregious violation of civil rights of African Americans in the District. Populations should receive reparations for this. Public officials should go to jail. 

A reparations plan should be focused on repairing the damage from two decades of policy violence and racial discrimination. If racial equity is really the goal with reparations, then it logically follows that structural barriers to racial equity in political government and agency performance should be studied and vastly improved.

• Expand Legislature - The US Senate had serious concerns about the size of the DC legislature as it deliberated over the Home Rule Act in the 1970s. Many thought that a size of 50 would be more appropriate, but ended up compromising. As I am told, Sterling Tucker, the first Council chair under Home Rule, raised concern about the size of the legislature soon after Home Rule took effect. To increase oversight and effective political representation to further political accountability for racial outcomes, the priority of the body politic and government should be the expansion of the legislature - with or without statehood. The 13-member Council is chronically overcapacity to perform oversight and legislative work. 

  • Give Black People a Vote - Reform of the state legislature (DC Council) would improve democratic accountability. Rather than rely on residents to testify on oversight, budget, and other agency hearing, GIVE BLACK PEOPLE A VOTE WITH A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THEIR INTEREST. The current system relies on people pleading before government officials and agencies, but we should ask ourselves, "What are the characteristics of people who have the time to take a day off of work to testify at various hearings?" "Who really holds the power and sway over government policy?" People would be far better off with an elected official, like the ANC, that can vote in the legislature.

  • Investigations - An expanded legislature would also have the capacity to conduct investigations and make referrals for criminal conduct to the US Attorney or the Office of Attorney General. There is an endless stream of allegations of corrupt public officials and government officials, an adequately-sized legislature would enable swift justice, especially where official or agency conduct engaged in policy and individual instances of racism.
    
    

• Public Health Economy - The failure for the District to realize racial health equity is found in the performance of the Public Health Economy - the totality of the structural determinants of health. As you know, Southwest DC residents are leading a movement to reign in contradictions and tensions of the Public Health Economy, which are at the root of vast and chronic chasms in racial health inequity. It makes little sense for the District to expand Medicaid if it is fueling social determinants of health - increasing poverty and income as a determinant of health, policy violence against Black women and families, rising income inequality, ghettoization of public housing, lack of housing affordability, ineffective agencies to enact health policy and interventions, and lax regulation of DC agencies and enforcement of existing law.
  
  To achieve racial health justice, it is imperative to ensure through legislation and oversight that the District moves in a uniform direction. No policy should be allowed to move forward that damages the Public Health Economy.

READ MORE - "DC Discussion on Slavery Reparations Makes Light of Its Role in Structural Racism"

Follow Us on Twitter - @SWVoiceDC

Southwest Coalition Calls on Council to Vote "No" on DCHA Bill 24-1144

Position Statement of the

Southwest Black Families Equity Coalition 

The Southwest Black Families Equity Coalition calls on DC Council to reject Bill 24-1144, the “District of Columbia Housing Authority Stabilization and Reform Emergency Amendment Act of 2022” at the legislative meeting scheduled for December 20, 2022. The bill to reform the DC Housing Authority Board on an emergency basis reinforces the findings of the HUD report that DCHA and the District work against the interests of residents.

The removal of two of the three resident-elected Commissioners is yet another affront to Black families who pay our rent yet live in public housing conditions that neither the Mayor nor Council would permit their pet. We have repeatedly asked DCHA to follow the law to provide fair and equal housing, rather than pursue policies of displacement and gentrification. Diminishing our voice and representation on the Board signals that DCHA, DC Council, and the Mayor have no intent to see through racial equity. We had a full and transparent electoral process for resident commissioners in January 2022. The three resident positions on the Board must be preserved. In addition to Board members such as Bill Slover and Ann Hoffman, the records of past and current resident-elected Commissioners have exercised greater independence than the interest-driven cabal on the DCHA Board. It is because of resident leaders and advocates that full-scale privatization of public housing and more acute displacement did not occur.

While we support having a representative from the Interagency Council on Homelessness (Theresa Silla) and presentation of voucher holders (Ronnie Harris), neither position was elected by residents. Their appointment should not come at the expense of families currently residing in public housing.

Mayoral control of the Board has prevented DCHA from fulfilling its mission to serve the most vulnerable resident population and from exercising independence from the Executive. The HUD report criticized Mayor Bowser’s appointees as “vot(ing) as a group without individual review of the action requested.” After the initial version of Bill 24-1144 was released, the DC Office of Attorney General published its report criticizing mayoral control of the Board, “In order to address the dysfunction at DCHA, we believe we must start with making DCHA truly independent.” Bill 24-1144 does not achieve sufficient independence. There are considerable gaps in knowledge about the political activity of named appointees in Bill 24-1144, including campaign donations to the Mayor and DC Council members.

DCHA officials, DC Council, and the Mayor created this crisis - officials through negligence and corruption, DC Council through lax oversight and complicity, and the Mayor through her proxies. Rather than strengthen DC code Section 6-211 which governs the DCHA Board, Bill 24-1144 seeks to jettison the law because it became too much of an inconvenience to DCHA. It is widely reported that DCHA circumvented the law that the Board approve contracts and services over a set dollar amount by creating multiple increments of smaller contracts. Section 6-211 does not provide procedures for radical changes of the DCHA Board of this magnitude. It leaves little doubt in our minds that Bill 24-1144 is precisely what the HUD audit warned about - the lack of independence of DCHA from political influence and deep-seated corruption and cronyism. Bill 24-1144 is intended to grease the wheel for developer profits while our families' lives and homes are placed as bargaining chips. We shall not be idle spectators to the diminution and destruction of the law and Constitution, which guarantee us equal protection and fair and equal housing.

The Mayor, Chairman Phil Mendelson, Councilors Kenyan McDuffie and Anita Bonds, and Ward 6 Councilor Charles Allen were all re-elected in November. None of the candidates indicated their support for the Board to be reformed by removing Resident Commissioners. Mendelson has indicated that he has the support of nine Council members, which means that several candidates hid their position and abused the American democratic process.

We are aware that there is grave concern inside Council that Chairman Mendelson is poised to use his committee chairmanship and appointment powers as leverage for a December 20 bill. Our anonymous source lamented, “The day after the vote, the Chairman will also tell Councilmembers what committees they will be assigned to chair or serve on for the next years. He has distraction plus leverage."

The Southwest Black Families Equity Coalition Calls on DC Council to reject Bill 24-1144 and seek comprehensive, measured reform in the next Council period.

The Southwest Black Families Equity Coalition Partners

Dena Walker, President of Greenleaf Gardens Resident Council, Patricia Bishop, President of Greenleaf Family Midrise; Rhonda Hamilton, President of Syphax Resident Council; Community Allies - Southwest Voice: The People's People and Christopher Williams, President of Capitol Park Plaza and Twins Tenant Association 

Video on Southwest Social Injustices Goes Viral - 19,000 Views in One Week

The Disappearance of Relisha, Age 8: The System Failed Her and Continues to Fail Children