Anonymous said...Since the above clearly represents the opinions of one commenter (opinions that I may, or may not, share), I'll not elaborate on that point further. The reason I'm posting this on the front page is that helps to give a good bare bones illustration of some of the obstacles (or at least the common perceptions of obstacles) the corridor continues to face. Additionally, the comment asks us all to consider what sort of actions we need from the new Ward 6 Council Member (which should give rise to some good pre-election questions for the candidates). So, if we can refrain from personal attacks & excessive snarkiness (this is a bit more serious than some of the issues we deal with & it also hits on some sore spots for a good many people), I'll ask people to go ahead & comment on the thoughts above. Let's keep it clean.The previous commenter is correct to say that we need to demand more from the next council member. However, we also need to demand more from the Main Street, REstore DC, and the CDC.
HSMS is poorly run and it has little progress to show for itself. Recently, the organization missed some terrific opportunities. Why did it cancel the contract with Ready Willing and Able to clean the streets? Why was it unwilling to support a BID with Capitol Hill BID?
REstore DC, the government agency that's supposed to help HSMS, is just a waste. Their assistance consists mostly of hectoring and paperwork. They're untrustworthy and unprofessional. They make the work of HSMS even more difficult.
The CDC is both corrupt (the Post had a story several years ago) and responsible for most of the bad development on the corridor (Autozone, for example). Their skills are poor; their interests are parochial; they're not very trustworthy.
So here's what we need to demand from Tommy or whoever wins the election:
1. Demand a financial audit of HSMS and the CDC;
2. Pressure HSMS to follow its bylaws, including getting a new HSMS board chair and getting rid of board members in long standing who don't do anything.
3. Focus on REstore DC and make them provide useful assistance to HSMS and other Main Streets. This should include real money. It should also include some assistance on stuff like secretarial work and financial paperwork.
4. Don't give the CDC another dime. Make sure they've stopped self dealing and engaging in financial deals that enrich board members and staff.
5. Understand that the H Street Corridor has been underfunded and ignored for about 40 years. The private and public sectors have failed until recently. The nonprofit sectors -- the CDC and HSMS -- have a role to play but they can do better.
6. Support the city agencies that are doing great work. Planning and DDOT are really wonderful. They've engaged the neighbors and listened to our concerns. They deserve our deep and heartfelt gratitude.
Nobody's got the secret answer on how to get this work done. But for the first time in a very, very long time we can see very serious and exciting progress. To continue this progress, the next ward 6 councilman needs to provide constant oversight and attention to the H Street Corridor.
-H Street resident
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Larger Structural Issues & The Council Member's Role
The following recently appeared in the comments following a the posted announcement of an HSMS Design Committee meeting:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
In my original comment I accused the CDC of being "corrupt" and "self-dealing." Those accusations were based on evidence provided in an article from the Post. Here's the cite for that article:
“Risky Ventures, Little Accountability; After Years of Public Funding, Nonprofits Have Completed Few Projects;” by Marcia Slacum Greene, Yolanda Woodlee and Carol D. Leonnig; Washington Post, February 25, 2002, pg. A01.
Hopefully this comment doesn't sink to snarkyness. But I didn't want to make such a serious accusation without backing it up with evidence.
-H Street resident
As an ex-board member and one of the original founders of HSMS, I will say that people ought not to worry so much about the money--i.e., the call for an audit--because there's very little money there, from the city, or from other funders. Most of the city money goes to paying an executive director. And the biggest in-kind donation is the office space provided by Bank of America.
The issue is the philosophy of the organization, what it's committed to, whether or not this jibes with the Main Street model generally, as well as being an organization truly based in and a port of the community.
_____
As far as DC Main Streets goes, they had a tough road, because they had to please people politically. This means they ended up hiring consultants who met demographic filters, but didn't know much about (1) the Main Street model of commercial district revitalization; (2) historic preservation, which is an underpinning of the model; (3) urban revitalization; (4) community organizations and organizing.
So this put DCMS behind the eight ball in terms of being able to provide the right kind of guidance and all (irrespective of the poster's point about an over-focus on paperwork). Not to mention most of the Main Street organizations were enamored with the money part of the agreement, not learning the Main Street approach--which is awesome and intricate--and applying it to their situation.
There are some amazingly successful urban main street programs out there, such as what I consider to be arguably the most successful such program, the East Carson Main Street program in Pittsburgh, which is for a district bigger than H Street, and after 20 years has yielding $385M/$119M private/public investment, 3500 new jobs since 1985, 3900 additional jobs in the near future.
I have written about the DC Main Streets experience extensively, in these blog entries:
-- I hope New Orleans('s urban Main Street program) can learn from DC; and
-- Yesterday's testimony on the DC Main Streets program.
These blog entries were written more with the eye of learning from mistakes and more importantly, how to replicate success rather than failure.
______
And with the CDC too, an audit isn't really the issue, the CDC got a pass, if not glowing report, from the HUD Inspector General's office after the big Washington Post expose in Feb. 2002, so in the great scheme of things it isn't the money.
It's the philosophy and intent of the organization, and how that gets executed in projects, not to mention how many of the recent projects have put most of the revenue streams into for-profit entities, that matters.
By the way, this is why I tried within the rubric of the ANC6C Planning and Zoning Committee in the fall of 2004 I think (and got crushed) in a PUD re-approval at North Capitol and H Street that included the H St. CDC as one of the nonprofit "partners" (along with the religious affiliated Joshua Group from the "Northwest One" area).
I said that (1) since the CDC is participating as part of a "community amenity" package; (2) and getting a portion of the revenue stream from the project (when it builds); (3) and community amenities are part of public policy within the Zoning Regulations; (4) that the HSCDC should be required to disclose what they spend the money on, annually; [(5) in fact this should be required on the part of all such agreements that result from Zoning Orders from the DC Zoning Commission, and it isn't].
The lawyers for the developers came out in force (I don't remember which firm it was now), lobbied the hell out of the susceptible ANC Commissioners, and this provision in the ANC recommendation to the Zoning Commission fell by the wayside.
A problem with both organizations is a self-replicating board. With the CDC, four of the board members are appointed by Councilmembers--2 from Ward 6, 1 from Ward 2 (a holdover when the part of the neighborhood north of H Street was in Ward 2), and the Council Chair. (A few years ago the CDC in a bylaw change eliminated the Mayoral appointees.) And some of the standing board members are from organizations that while they might have existed when the organization was founded in the mid-1980s, well fundamentally, they don't exist now, but the board positions continue.
But in the great scheme of things, and justifiably from a "product" standpoint, the H Street CDC is considered to be very successful. More than just about any CDC in the city, except for Marshall Heights CDO, the H Street CDC constructs buildings, big buildings sometimes, and sells them at a profit, which is what real estate development, even community real estate development, is partly about.
The issue is whether or not those projects contribute positively to revitalization going forward.
when is the next ward 6 debate? could we get a debate on or near h street? perhaps at sherwood? would anyone be interested in helping me organize this?
AP from Wylie
A candidates forum focused strictly on H Street issues is an interesting idea. I know that there was a forum on H Street issues at H Street Playhouse featuring Tommy Wells exclusively a couple months back.
Another H Street issue that could come up would be the streetcar.
As I wrote in a blog entry last night, relying strictly on new Skoda/Inekon vehicles, it will be many years before a streetcar system actually runs on the corridor. But there is nothing to prevent the mounting of a historic or historic replica streetcar from running once the tracks are in the street.
See Adding cultural heritage dimensions and expanded service capabilities within commercial districts to DC Streetcar planning.
Where allegations of corruption/impropriety have been raised, I don't think it's inappropriate to point that out.
The 2002 Post articles: Part 1 and Part 2.
Oh well, yet another opportunity for a discussion blown way by the "expert".
Codes such as "they ended up hiring consultants who met demographic filters," Really!!!
I appreciate the well researched, developed and verifiable information that the "expert" posts. His posts are so much more substantial and informative than the sophomoric idea that HSMS failed because a board member(s) misappropriated or embezzled HSMS (meager) funds. Is it not important that the community learn the truth, however painful it may be or is it better to believe that a community organization failed because of one simple action/issue? This is similar to certain people who want us to believe that the issues throughout the Middle East boil down to one simple concept: "They hate our freedom". As a community, we should be receptive to the idea that failed organizations, policies, etc. cannot be distilled down to one simple cause.
Surprisingly enough, I do more than merely read Frozen Tropics and local e-lists, "I get around," and have experiences with urban revitalization that extend beyond North Capitol Street...
The reason I wrote what I wrote is that too often, when people focus on organizations that they have legitimate criticisms of, they call for an audit, only, as if that is the sole problem (granted, sometimes it is the problem, but not really in either of these cases).
Like in the entry I wrote yesterday about "Asking the Wrong Question" (which is about education) this is another example of it.
The issue isn't an audit.
So what do you do when you "win," and they perform an audit and it doesn't find impropriety?
Then all your arguments are undercut, delegitimated, because you focused on the wrong thing.
Mostly, I am about "minimalism" and effect. I like to minimize the amount of work that I do, and I don't want to waste my time on bullshit. I am concerned about results.
When I point stuff out, it is because I'd rather not waste the time of myself and others, knowing how things will turn out in the end, especially if they take the wrong track/tack.
Sure I can provide lots of criticism about the H St. CDC or the H Street Main Street organization.
But I'd gather that any "audit" wouldn't come up with conclusions markedly different from "About H Street Main Street - My Opinion" in the March 2005 archive of my blog, compiled from 3 emails written in August 2004, or my testimony about the use of Community Development Block Grants in the District of Columbia, focusing on the H Street Community Development Corporation as the primary example and test case. This testimony was written in 12/2003 and subsequently revised.
And there is the piece "Falling Up" about CDCs, including the H Street CDC, citing not just the two Post articles listed in this thread but maybe 4 others, in my July 2005 blog archive.
Generally, being closed off to understanding and reasoning is not a sign of a sound mind...
whatever
(Gosh, and don't get me going on the Mideast... but then, I wrote a paper on the fall of Iran and conservative religious response back in the spring of 1980. It compared this to the rise of Hasidism in Poland in the 1600s....)
do any if you have a life besides h street?
Now, that's the kind of unproductive, anonymous, purely snarky comment I'd like to avoid on the site. About as mature as "I know you are, but what am I." Cut it out.
Regarding my call for a public audit of HSMS, I do not believe that any kind of illegal activity has occurred within the organization. But I bet their financial books are a mess. The point of an audit would be to provide clear proof of the lack of appropriate management practices in the organization since its inception. This clear proof could then be used for force change within an organization that has a great deal of unrealized potential.
I was unaware of the audit of the H Street CDC. Thank you Richard for pointing out its existence and explaining its findings.
-H Street resident
Well, the books were set up by Judy Wood, a pretty reputable accountant, also used by such groups as the Capitol Hill BID... The issue is what they focus on, and the fact that they have no money.
A "philosophical" audit is hard for accountants to do, since they just look at numbers.
The "problem" in terms of higher ups is that various officers are very well connected, so the hands are tied on the part of the main funder, since DCMS works within the political structure it's given.*
Personally, I don't think that the organization is in compliance with the "Letter of Agreement," which among various provisions, includes a requirement that the program be based on historic preservation principles and that it follows the Main Street Approach.
E.g., there is a program review each year by the DCMS program. But interestingly enough, considering that I was kicked off the board "for cause," I was never interviewed as part of that process. (Of course, they knew what was going on, because it was written.) I didn't try hard enough to stay on the board, to lobby for retention, because I figured the lies by the person advocating most strenuously for my removal were pretty obvious. But we know that "pretty obvious" isn't obvious enough when it comes to urban revitalization in the H Street neighborhood.*
* I'd like to name names, but it gets dicey.
Post a Comment