Enjoying DC Council get dragged on the Hill

[Anonymous]

Not GOP. Dislike the Retrumplicans. But honestly I enjoyed watching the squirming. DC Council deserves the dragging. The Mayor vetoed their idiotic bill, but the arrogance and the hubris…

Anyway, I hope they learn their lesson. And DC voters, can we get some normal people elected? Ideally who are no quite so corrupt and self-interested.

And for goodness sake no more carpetbaggers please (Nadeau and Allen are awful, we have much better candidates who grew up in the Wards 1 and 6.

[Anonymous]

No one ran against Allen in Ward 6, OP. So many people complain about him, but not a single person ran against him?? What does that say about Ward 6?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one ran against Allen in Ward 6, OP. So many people complain about him, but not a single person ran against him?? What does that say about Ward 6?

Well to be fair, wasn’t there an ANC rep who was going to run against him but then she got redistricted into Ward 7?

I live in Ward 6 and would love to move on to someone more practical/less performative (I like Christina Henderson, who I think strikes this balance), but I don’t personally want to run and am not qualified. I do think people on the Hill are complacent and like that Allen says the right things, meaning he is careful about his speech in terms of not offending anyone and does at least claim to care about stuff that matters.

But yes, I think most of the council is just deeply unserious people.

[Anonymous]

This is a great piece! Just a few excerpts below make me dislike the council and their idiotic childish decisions without any regard for the longer term.

https://www.slowboring.com/p/why-im-worried-about-dcs-criminal

I really started paying attention to this process when the U.S. Attorney for D.C. raised objections to a small number of the rewrite’s provisions. I assumed that either the Council would address his concerns or else there would be a huge high-profile political fight about it. But neither of those things happened, and the Council proceeded full-steam ahead, even as the mayor and the chief of police joined the U.S. Attorney in raising red flags.

Suffice it to say, though, that I hope rational people can agree that Mayor Muriel Bowser, Police Chief Robert Contee, and U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves are not right-wing media personalities or dilettante pundits. Running through advocates’ side of the argument over this, it seems to me that they can’t decide whether they’re dispelling the myth that this is a soft-on-crime, anti-carceral measure or motivated by the fact that that’s exactly what it is.

the biggest issue with this legislation without explaining why it’s controversial: the Revised Criminal Code Act is going to require either a large expansion in the number of jury trials held in the city or else a significant reduction in enforcement of the law against people who commit misdemeanor offenses.

the Council actually can’t provide the resources in question due to the unusual constitutional status of the D.C. legal system.

[Anonymous]

This is one of the issues the DC NEVER talks about on the way to statehood. We have no state court system. Instead the constitutionally appointed system is paid for 100% by the federal government. Any attempt to change that or expand that would require a DC budget line which has NEVER been funded or existed.

In the world of politics an unfunded measure is simply a statement and not really an action. This whole crime bill is theater as major portions, like the court system expansion are unfunded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not GOP. Dislike the Retrumplicans. But honestly I enjoyed watching the squirming. DC Council deserves the dragging. The Mayor vetoed their idiotic bill, but the arrogance and the hubris…

Anyway, I hope they learn their lesson. And DC voters, can we get some normal people elected? Ideally who are no quite so corrupt and self-interested.

And for goodness sake no more carpetbaggers please (Nadeau and Allen are awful, we have much better candidates who grew up in the Wards 1 and 6.

All hail my colonial overlords!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one ran against Allen in Ward 6, OP. So many people complain about him, but not a single person ran against him?? What does that say about Ward 6?

I get what Allen and the other young progressives on the Council are doing. They all view themselves as future mayoral candidates and are continually trying to outflank each other with increasingly extreme spending and policy proposals. The one that makes much less sense is Frumin. While, like the rest of the council he has no actual private sector work experience, he is a grown man and has actually raised a family in DC. Yet he is acting like a 20-something bike activist that doesn’t know any better. It’s embarrassing and shameful.

[Anonymous]

This whole situation plus the two other bills being reviewed by Congress illustrates the only reason I support DC statehood. This city is badly to poorly run in many areas but the way the Congress is allowed to simply over rule decisions of the democratically elected representatives of the people of DC is the definition of taxation without representation. Yes, I know, I could move elsewhere. Blah blah blah. That doesn’t make this situation any more acceptable in the capital of the free world. And I would say this if the party positions were reversed. And I don’t agree with major portions of the crime bill.

We should get to vote on exercise of the police power where we live without being overruled by people who live somewhere else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This whole situation plus the two other bills being reviewed by Congress illustrates the only reason I support DC statehood. This city is badly to poorly run in many areas but the way the Congress is allowed to simply over rule decisions of the democratically elected representatives of the people of DC is the definition of taxation without representation. Yes, I know, I could move elsewhere. Blah blah blah. That doesn’t make this situation any more acceptable in the capital of the free world. And I would say this if the party positions were reversed. And I don’t agree with major portions of the crime bill.

We should get to vote on exercise of the police power where we live without being overruled by people who live somewhere else.

The majority of DC residents actually pay no federal taxes. So there’s that.

[Anonymous]

Y’all understand that the House can’t unilaterally overturn DC legislation, right? Anyone who gets excited by dilatory, performative, partisan posturing needs to get better hobbies.

[Anonymous]

No-Do time for you to go practice performative posturing on my taxpayer $. DC Counselors either suck or have been caught red handed in serious corruption. Maybe except Pinto, Net negative.

You are not serious people

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a great piece! Just a few excerpts below make me dislike the council and their idiotic childish decisions without any regard for the longer term.

https://www.slowboring.com/p/why-im-worried-about-dcs-criminal

I really started paying attention to this process when the U.S. Attorney for D.C. raised objections to a small number of the rewrite’s provisions. I assumed that either the Council would address his concerns or else there would be a huge high-profile political fight about it. But neither of those things happened, and the Council proceeded full-steam ahead, even as the mayor and the chief of police joined the U.S. Attorney in raising red flags.

Suffice it to say, though, that I hope rational people can agree that Mayor Muriel Bowser, Police Chief Robert Contee, and U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves are not right-wing media personalities or dilettante pundits. Running through advocates’ side of the argument over this, it seems to me that they can’t decide whether they’re dispelling the myth that this is a soft-on-crime, anti-carceral measure or motivated by the fact that that’s exactly what it is.

the biggest issue with this legislation without explaining why it’s controversial: the Revised Criminal Code Act is going to require either a large expansion in the number of jury trials held in the city or else a significant reduction in enforcement of the law against people who commit misdemeanor offenses.

the Council actually can’t provide the resources in question due to the unusual constitutional status of the D.C. legal system.

Matt makes a solid argument. Reinstating the right to jury trials for misdemeanors is a nice idea in a world without resource constraints, but will likely have adverse consequences given prevailing realities. That doesn’t change the fact though that key provisions of the RCCA have been blatantly mischaracterized by politicians and pundits seeking to score cheap political points from credulous constituents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No-Do time for you to go practice performative posturing on my taxpayer $. DC Counselors either suck or have been caught red handed in serious corruption. Maybe except Pinto, Net negative.

You are not serious people

Sounds like you’re talking about Jack Evans. I’m glad he’s gone too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No-Do time for you to go practice performative posturing on my taxpayer $. DC Counselors either suck or have been caught red handed in serious corruption. Maybe except Pinto, Net negative.

You are not serious people

Sounds like you’re talking about Jack Evans. I’m glad he’s gone too.

Not only. No-Do is constantly getting caught doing self serving unethical stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No-Do time for you to go practice performative posturing on my taxpayer $. DC Counselors either suck or have been caught red handed in serious corruption. Maybe except Pinto, Net negative.

You are not serious people

Sounds like you’re talking about Jack Evans. I’m glad he’s gone too.

Not only. No-Do is constantly getting caught doing self serving unethical stuff.

Such as?