Viewing entries in
Blog Post

Comment

Only $26,000 per year!

Last week, my colleagues and I took up the Large Retailer Accountability Act (LRAA), which requires all District retailers whose parent companies make at least $1 billion in sales to pay their employees a minimum of $12.50 per hour — $4.25 above the current District minimum wage. After much deliberation, I supported this legislation and it passed the Council and is now waiting for the Mayor’s signature.

 The District of Columbia has seen immense growth and development over the last 10 years. Much of the growth has been possible because of government subsidies, incentives and partnerships with developers and retailers. As a result, the city’s strong economy and growing population has become attractive to national businesses. We certainly have more work to do; however, the District of Columbia is in a strong bargaining position to attract quality jobs and quality opportunities for District residents.

We must balance the interest of attracting large retailers to our less developed Wards 5, 7 and 8, while also attracting quality jobs to support our residents and their families. The federal minimum wage has remained stagnant, while the numbers of low-wage jobs and temporary positions have increased. Under this legislation, a full-time employee of a larger retailer making the minimum would take home only around $26,000 annually. That is it; barely over the federal poverty line for a family of four.  We can do better than this for our residents.

Wal-Mart made this the Wal-Mart bill with a concerted, expensive lobbying effort. Other large stores in the District like Costco, Home Depot, Target, and Macy’s would also have to abide by the law, but considering that Wal-Mart currently pays its workers 28 percent less on average than other larger retailers, I get why they have made this about them. Other communities around the country have fought Wal-Mart on wages, on benefits, on preserving local business. Almost every community has lost the fight — that is one method Wal-Mart has used to become the number one grossing company on the Fortune 500 list again in 2013.

Wal-Mart employs more people than any other company in the United States outside of the federal government, yet the majority of its employees with children live below the poverty line. According to the company, Wal-Mart pays its full-time, associates an average of $12.67 per hour. But with an increased reliance on temporary hires, about a third of its employees work less than 28 hours per week. Entry associates typically start near minimum wage, and have the potential to earn raises of 20 to 40 cents an hour through incremental promotions. A perfect review on your annual performance evaluation will get you an increase of 60 cents. As a result, an entry-level associate (earning $8.25 per hour) who “exceeds expectations,” and gets one promotion, is likely to earn only $10.90 per hour after five years of service.

Sadly, that is what our residents have to look forward to if the LRAA is not signed into law. I believe that the long-term effect of six Wal-Marts in D.C. would perpetuate a system of poverty that traps our poorest residents in low-paying jobs, with little hope for advancement.

I, along with the seven other Councilmembers who voted in favor of the LRAA, am asking that we treat our residents better. According to a 2012 report by the non-partisan think tank, Demos, raising wage standards to the equivalent of $25,000 per year for full-time retail workers would lift 734,075 people out of poverty, increase the GDP by billions, and create 100,000 to 132,000 additional jobs. Having saturated many suburban and rural areas, Wal-Mart has long had its eyes on our great city as part of its larger effort to expand into highly populated urban areas. Rather than continue its habit of paying low wages, Wal-Mart could use its position of influence as one of the nation’s largest retailers to drive up wages and spur job creation in the District.

If Wal-Mart chooses not to go forward with its three remaining stores, I would not be upset. In fact, we should really be asking ourselves if our city can even support six stores, all of which are about 15 minutes or less from each other.

This presents an opportunity for the city to become more creative in its efforts to spur more development in our Wards east of the river. For example, why not recruit Trader Joe’s, a company that pays its entry-level crew members, $10 to $12, for Skyland?  Not only would it provide residents in that neighborhood with a high-quality grocery option, but also lure residents who faithfully travel into Arlington and Alexandria to make the journey to a popular brand. I am willing to invest D.C. tax dollars to support such an effort – if we can show the area can support the investment. If Ward 7 needs other investments to entice businesses, we have a host of solutions we can try from improving safety to fixing blight. That is our role as a government in an economically powerful city.

I will continue to work along with my colleagues at the Council, to better ensure that D.C. residents have greater opportunities to earn a living wage.  Retailers and companies like Costco Wholesale and the grocery store chain Trader Joe’s, are proving that the decision to offer low wages is a choice, not an economic necessity.

Comment

Comment

Why D.C. needs public campaign financing

My Op-Ed on “Why D.C. needs public campaign financing” was featured in the Washington Post this past Sunday. It is clear that the moment has come for comprehensive campaign finance reform. Please share to get the conversation started. Also note that Councilmember McDuffie will hold a public roundtable on public financing of campaigns on Thursday, July 11, 2013 at 11:00 a.m. in room 500 of the John A. Wilson Building located at 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.

The presence of corporate dollars flowing into D.C. elections has corrupted our electoral system and failed our residents. The system has fallen out of balance, and forces with something to gain from political influence have come to badly outweigh the interests of ordinary citizens. The solution is to increase the number of engaged residents who have a stake in ethical leaders. Fair Elections D.C., a bill that I have proposed with council member Kenyan McDuffie (D-Ward 5), can help restore this balance between residents and corporate interests.

To read more, click here.

To read more about campaign finance and why I vote no on contracts, click here:

Help Clean Up D.C. with Fair Elections Legislation, Washington Post

D.C. Development: Fixing the System, WAMU

Curtail D.C. Council power over contracts, Washington Post

Pol protests D.C. Council contract vote, Washington Examiner

Comment

Comment

D.C. Zoning Regulations Review: Government Oversight vs. Government Overstepping

The Council is tasked with making our city a better place to live, work, and visit.  The work we do impacts and hopefully improves lives.   We often must spend countless hours meeting and discussing bill drafts and redrafts, and holding roundtables and hearings.  But the legislative process can often slow progress down and good intentions of the Council can get lost somewhere in the tangled process. 

The “process” is currently impeding progress by not allowing the Office of Planning’s update to the Zoning Regulation to go forward to the Zoning Commission.  This process should be straightforward like this: 

  • Step 1. Determine that substantial change has happened since 1958; 
  • Step 2. The Office of Planning (OP) creates the Zoning Regulations Review (ZRR) to recommend revisions to the DC Zoning Regulations.  OP meets to discuss and re-draft the proposal until there is a revised document that they can send to the Zoning Commission (ZC).  The ZC is a wholly independent body that oversees District zoning – according to the Home Rule Act neither the Mayor nor the Council has authority over the ZC. 
  • Step 3.  The ZC holds hearings and then denies or approves the new Zoning Regulations. 

It may not actually be that easy, but it should not be hard either.  And the Council should not be making it any more difficult.  When we make the process more difficult, we move from a position of oversight to a placewhere we are overstepping our role.  In the current situation, the Council should stop holding hearings and instead support sending the proposal to the ZC. 

Historical background:

The Council passed a Comprehensive Plan in 2006 that required (via the Home Rule Act) an overhaul of the regulations for future planning and development of the District.  The authority for making these changes was then vested in OP.   In 2007, OP created the Zoning Regulations Review (ZRR) to revise the DC Zoning Regulations.   ZRR got a new name and is now known as the Zoning Update (ZU).  The ZU focused on twenty subjects, which the new regulations describe by specific subject.  Five years later in 2012, the ZU proposed recommendations were sent to a Task Force made up of mostly Councilmember appointees.  And this is where the trouble begins.

The progression at this point should have been that the Task Force makes their comments, OP makes some edits to the ZU, and then OP sends the final proposed regulations to the Zoning Commission.  When the proposals are sent to the ZC they schedule public hearings on the proposed regulations prior to making any final decision.   This was supposed to happen during the first quarter of 2013.  At the current rate, this implementation process has been stalled for at least another year.

The Task Force and the Council continue today to delay the proposed regulations and delay the process.  Many residents are confused and think that at the least this process should be completed already.  So, what is the hold up?  I cannot speak about motives of other people, but here is what I understand are the major issues delaying this process and where I stand on them:

         Zero Minimum Parking Requirements 

  • OP wants to eliminate on-site parking requirements for all new buildings constructed downtown or in mixed-use, transit-accessible neighborhoods throughout the city.  I support this measure – in terms of required parking spaces, let the market decide.

         Corner Stores:

  • Corner stores are currently not permitted unless they have a current, valid Certificate of Occupancy.  In the proposed draft text, new corner stores such as retail, arts-related, or eating and drinking establishments would be permitted in the R-3 and R-4 zones by special exception, which would include a hearing before the Board of Zoning Adjustment. I support this measure.

        Accessory Dwellings Units

  • The proposed regulations would allow homeowners to make changes within their current home or garage, by right.  If they want to build a new dwelling separate from the main house, they will need to secure a special exception.  I support this measure.

Zoning is an organic process and very difficult to regulate.  How can we possibly anticipate how the city will look in the future?  We cannot. We have to do our best to make it safe and reasonable, but beyond that point it must have the freedom to grow on its own.  I think that OP has done a very good job completing a very difficult task.  Now, we need to step back, let OP finish their work, and send their proposed regulations to ZC.

For more information about modernizing the zoning code, click here  

For updates on the process: http://zoningdc.org/ and http://www.dczoningupdate.org

Comment