The District of Columbia's Snow Response

As the expression goes, "all politics is local". Therefore, today I am going to take a break from my usual focus on cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump, although there is certainly a lot that can be said about him, and turn my attention to a local District of Columbia issue. This change in focus was inspired by an editorial in the Washington Post on Friday. That editorial, bylined by the "The Editorial Board" and titled "D.C.'s glacial response to the winter storm," is indicative of how far the Post has fallen in recent years. While the Post's editorials about the District have historically been a low point in the newspaper's performance, this one sets new standards in ridiculousness. The concluding paragraph comes off almost as satire. At any rate, with the editorial as a starting point, I am going to give this topic what you might call the "Matthew Yglesias treatment." In other words, I will take a complex issue and simplistically show how it justifies my preconceived political opinions.

My initial impressions of how the District government was addressing the snowstorm that began in the early morning hours of January 25 were very positive. I live on what is basically a side street that in past snowstorms was mostly ignored while other nearby streets were plowed. Therefore, I was pleasantly surprised Saturday evening when a truck came down our street pretreating the roadway. Then on Sunday I saw at least three trucks with plows come through. I likely missed additional plows. The upshot was that, by the time the snow and ice ended, our road was clear. I was impressed by how the storm had been handled and commented to my wife that I had absolutely no criticisms of the government's performance.

Of course, a clear road did not mean that we were able to go anywhere. One of our cars was in our garage, which is accessed by an alley, and the alley had not been plowed. Nor was I willing to shovel it. So that car was stranded. The other two cars were parked on the street and blocked in by a huge wall of ice and snow that the plows had left behind. It was a two-day chore to get them cleared. It was only then that we found out what a mess the rest of the city was in. While it was fine that our road only had one lane plowed, it was a problem that the same was true of major arteries. Moreover, huge piles of snow at intersections made navigating cross-streets a challenge. Forget getting to bus stops by those wanting to take mass transportation. Curb lanes were not cleared and bus stops were isolated behind swaths of frozen snow. Last night, I saw that 16th Street NW, a major snow emergency route, was finally being cleared. But that was a week after the snow fell. So, while I have nothing but praise for how the District government handled my street, I can't say the same about its overall performance.

The Washington Post editorial correctly notes some of these performance issues and also provides the government’s response. The editorial highlights communications as an area in which the District government fell short. The editorial also praised the Metro system's response and the fact that neighbors often banded together to help each other out. That's all well and good, if somewhat superficial. The same can mostly be said about any major snowstorm that strikes the District. But where the editorial turned into a farce was the final paragraph, which said:

Still, it is fair for D.C. taxpayers to wonder why their government, which spends more per capita than any of the 50 states, took so long to dig out many neighborhoods. Many citizens banded together to hire private plows out of pocket because they grew so tired of waiting on their government to get around to performing one of its fundamental jobs. With a socialist running for mayor this year, the week offered timely reminders that private enterprises, motivated by profit, almost always perform better than government.

If someone had shown me this paragraph in isolation and told me that it was satire meant to mock a right-wing publication, I would have believed them. This was either written in bad faith or by someone who knows absolutely nothing about the District of Columbia. First, the canard that the District spends more per capita than any of the 50 states. That fact is true, but also misleading, and anyone who knows anything about D.C.'s spending would know that. Unlike the 50 states, D.C.'s government must play the role of state, county, and city. A fair comparison is not simply to state spending, but rather to the sum of state, county, and city spending in other jurisdictions.

I also very much doubt the claim that "many citizens" hired private plows to clear city roads. While that may have happened in a small number of neighborhoods, I am very skeptical that the practice was widespread. Finally, really plunging into the depths of absurdity is the swipe at Janeese Lewis George, the current Ward 4 Council Member who is running for mayor and is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. The current mayor, Muriel Bowser, has been repeatedly endorsed by the Post's editorial board. She has traditionally enjoyed very positive coverage from the Post. If there were faults with the District government's response to the snow, they lie at the feet of Bowser, not the Ward 4 councilwoman. Moreover, government employees using government-owned equipment to clear public roads is essentially the definition of socialism. Is the Post proposing that this be replaced with an entirely privatized system? Should we privatize the fire department and the police as well? Isn't that the natural conclusion of "private enterprises, motivated by profit, almost always perform better than government?"

Moreover, while the Post let the Post-endorsed Bowser off the hook, preferring to blame a socialist who does not run the District government, an actual socialist mayor seems to have done pretty well in New York City. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani has received unusually good marks for how he has handled the snow in the city that he governs. The New York Times has been one of Mamdani's strongest critics, failing to endorse him in either the primary or the general election and generally creating fear of his policies. Yet, the publication noted that "even some of Mr. Mamdani’s critics and those keeping close watch on his administration voiced overall approval of his management of the city’s storm response." So, put one in the win column for socialism.

Here is my own Monday morning quarterbacking of the District's response to the snow. First, it is pretty clear to me that the government had a plan and was very well prepared. Unfortunately, that plan and preparation were for a traditional snowstorm. This one that had several inches of either ice or frozen snow on top of a few more inches of snow was something for which the District was not prepared. The District's plan worked great until it didn't, and then the government didn't adjust quickly enough. As a Green Bay Packers fan, I am familiar with this phenomenon. Twice this season, the Packers built large leads over the Chicago Bears only to see their leads evaporate and then be overcome, resulting in Packer losses. Like the Packers, the District government failed to recognize soon enough that its plan was no longer working. The government needed to call an audible but didn't. Now the District has finally made adjustments, but I am afraid that it is too late. The response to this snowstorm will likely be remembered as a failure.

One area in which Bowser might have been more proactive is in utilizing the National Guard. Trump has deployed more than 2,000 Guard personnel to D.C., most of whom do little more than stand around. As soon as the first snowflake hit the ground, Bowser should have requested that the Guard participate in snow removal. If nothing else, they could have shoveled access to bus stops.

I think the lesson of D.C.'s response to the recent snowstorm is that planning and preparation are essential, but they can only take you so far. A certain amount of nimbleness is also required. The government should be prepared to change course when conditions require it. One thing that the Post editorial got right is that communication is critical. Residents can be patient if they know that their ordeal has an end. But when as far as they can tell nothing is being done, they understandably get upset. This is one of the things for which Mamdani has been praised. He took a campaign-style approach to communicating during the storm. This seems to have had a positive impact. I am not sure that we can expect Mayor Bowser, or potentially a Mayor George, to imitate Mamdani, but keeping residents in the loop with accurate information should be prioritized.

I, for one, am not ready to completely condemn the District's snow response. To return to a sports metaphor, the fundamentals are there. Execution was mostly good. The players did a good job but were let down by the coaches. Bowser has promised to learn from the experience. Let's hope that process is successful.