SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2010
KLMNO
EZ RE Local OPINIONS 6
washingtonpost.com/localopinions localopinions@washingtonpost.com
CLOSETOHOME THEDISTRICT
Floodwaters on the Mall The public announcement of a new, improved levee to be
built at 17th StreetNWbrought to mind a previous levee that has been part of the downtown landscape for decades [“Flood plan proposed to protectWashingtonMall,”Metro, Nov. 15]. FromMarch 15 to 18, 1936, there were three days of torren-
tial rainfall in theWashington area. The floodwaters reached a peak of 19 feet. East Potomac Park was underwater, as was the local airport. Even the White House was threatened. Fortunately, the Roosevelt administration had time to put
up a flood barrier. It was half a mile long, extending along Con- stitution Avenue, from the LincolnMemorial at 23rd Street NW all the way to 14th Street NW. Some 3,000 workers from theWorks Progress Administration (WPA) and the Civilian Conservation Corps were called in and began filling and laying sandbags.
According to newspaper reports, the crew worked through
the night, under searchlights provided by the U.S. Army. One young man defiantly yelled, “We’ll build ’em so high, the river’ll run the other way.” There were some black workers with expe- rience working on levees duringMississippi River floods. One was said to call out, “River, I’mnot afraid of you.We’ve got you down, river.” At 7
p.m.March 19, the flood reached its crest. The levee
held. Two years later, in February 1938, work began on a perma-
nent levee, using 300 WPA workers. A 2,300-foot-long barrier was raised north of the Reflecting Pool, this time extending from the LincolnMemorial as far as 17th Street NW. It was fin- ished sometime in 1939. The old levee can still be seen today, covered with grass and blending in with the landscape. John Lockwood, Washington
Local Blog Network
voices.washingtonpost.com/local-opinions Some of the region’s best bloggers share work on the All Opin-
ions Are Local blog. Below, one of last week’s posts.
Tobacco corruption in Virginia JohnW. Forbes II, secretary of finance under former Virginia
governor Jim Gilmore, has been sentenced to 10 years in prison after pleading guilty to federal wire fraud charges. It is by far the biggest scandal involving a state Cabinet-level official in years. The case raises questions about a state entity that is sup-
posed to use money obtained in a massive 1998 lawsuit settle- ment against four major tobacco companies for the public good. That entity with the long-winded title of the Virginia Tobacco
Indemnification and Community Revitalization Commission has so far distributed $728.7 million for do-good projects in the to- bacco belt stretching from the economically hard-hit counties in Southside and Southwest Virginia. It also has paid out $288.3 million to state tobacco growers on the theory that they need help to weather the decrease in tobacco sales following a slewof health-related lawsuits and the end of a 1938 federal program that artificially propped up tobacco prices. Forbes, who was the state’s top financial official fromMay
2001 until January 2002, also served on the tobacco commis- sion’s board. In June 2001, he won a $5 million grant from the commission to set up the Literary Foundation of Virginia. De- signed to promote adult literacy, the program apparently did lit- tle other than provide $1 million in salaries for Forbes and his spouse and help them buy a million-dollar house. “You not only betrayed the citizens of the commonwealth,
but also the governor that appointed you,”U.S. District Judge Henry
E.Hudson told Forbes as he passed down the 10-year sen- tence in Richmond onNov. 23. One has to ask what the real purpose of the tobacco commis-
sion is. It has done some useful work in helping small businesses grow and narrowing the digital divide in poor counties dealing with declines in the tobacco, textile and furniture sectors. But why do tobacco farmers need nearly $300 million in aid?
They had been living off federal largess for decades, namely from a Depression-era program that kept tobacco prices artificially high by having the federal government restrict tobacco growing and sales. After years of protection by Congress, the program created “allotments” allowing tobacco growing in areas of only about four acres. These units could be bequeathed to survivors and they kept tobacco prices at levels perhaps several times higher than that of far more useful crops such as corn and soybeans. The program has since come to an end. Yet Virginia officials thought that tobacco farmers deserved
more. So, one of the tobacco commission’s first activities was sending allotment holders checks for simply having an allot- ment. Some got up to $12,000.
Peter Galuszka, Bacon’s Rebellion
MONICAC.BELLANDJENNIFERMEZEYWASHINGTON A distraction on the road to a better D.C. welfare system Over the past two weeks, D.C.
Council member Marion Barry (D-Ward 8) has received a great deal of attention for co-sponsor- ing a bill that would toss more than 7,000 families off the welfare (or “TANF”) rolls because they have been on the program for more than five years. As the bill is drafted, this time limit would go into effect without provisions for training or transitional assistance and regardless of whether the head of household is disabled, a survivor of domestic violence, over 60 or simply a casualty of the District’s abominable employ- ment and training services. The harshness of this cutoff, and the fame of the person who proposed it, have sparked the interest of national media outlets. What reporters and editorial
writershavegenerallyoverlooked, however, is that not even Barry seems to support the legislation.
In his Nov. 21 commentary in
The Post, “A needed conversation on welfare in D.C.,” Barry called his bill “imperfect and incom- plete,” adding, “It is wrong to sug- gest, assomehave, that I would be so callous as to advocate the im- mediate removal of thousands of TANF recipients.” After advocates testified at aNov. 15 hearing about the harm the legislation would exact on children, families and survivors of domestic violence, Barry chastised them for focusing on the implications of the bill. “Why would you spend all your time talking about something we’re not going to do?” he asked. CouncilmemberYvette Alexander (D-Ward 7), the bill’s co-sponsor, haslikewiseclarifiedthatshedoes not want to cut families off wel- fare.
Given that neither of the bill’s co-sponsors wants the bill to pass, what has this legislation, and the
conversation and coverage sur- rounding it, achieved? On Nov. 15, the Washington
Times quoted Barry’s disparage- ment of an alleged neighbor in Southeastwhogets “$400or$500 worthoffoodstampsbutwon’tget up in the morning and fix break- fast” — bringing to mind the ra- cially charged 1980s and 1990s image of the “welfare queen.” OnNov. 17, Barry appeared on a
Fox News program whose host applauded him for “seeing the light” and encouraged him to give a new message to Democratic leaders: “Iamanti-welfare. Idon’t like this. I want it cut off.” On Nov. 18, The Post published
an editorial suggesting that the Barry-Alexander bill would bring the District’s welfare program in line with other states’ programs. In fact, the bill would give the District one of the harshest time- limit statutes in the nation, with
no hardship exemptions, no re- quirement that families be screened for disabilities, domestic violence or other barriers to em- ployment, and no acknowledg- ment that families could be doing everything society wants of them and still be unable to find jobs in this economy. In other words, this media cov-
erage has reinforced prejudices and reignited ideas that make it difficult for families toescapepov- erty. None of this coverage has fo-
cused on the families who receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the barriers they face, measures that would actually move welfare recipients from job- lessness and poverty into the workplace, and the challenge of doing so in the midst of an eco- nomic crisis that has left many people with more education and job skills out of work.
D.C. Department of Human
Services Director Clarence H. Carter, aware of the serious flaws in the District’s welfare-to-work program, has initiated a massive program redesign. More than a month before Barry and Alexan- der introduced their bill, council members Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6) and Michael A. Brown (I-At Large) proposed important legis- lation that would require the wel- fare agency to assess recipients’ work skills both at the beginning and throughout the program, and would provide better educational and job training opportunities. The council held a public hear-
ing on the Brown-Wells bill this month, but it didn’t attract much media attention. That is a shame, but it’s not a surprise. Throwing familiesandchildrenoffTANFisa more provocative idea than help- ing them find employment and movetoward self-sufficiency.
Advocates for families living in
poverty have been working with the D.C. Council and the Depart- ment ofHuman Services on these improvements to the program, andweare eager tocontinuethese conversations. None of us wants families to remain tethered to a paltry $370 monthly check for
generations.None of us wants the welfare program to hinder people fromworkingandelevatingthem- selves and their children out of poverty. But those conversations cannot be based on stereotypes about people who receive welfare, ideological disdain for the very concept of public assistance or legislation so flawedthat not even its co-sponsors want it to pass.
Monica C. Bell is a public interest fellow at the Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia. Jennifer Mezey is supervising attorney of the organization’s public benefits unit.
WRITE FOR US Local Opinions, a place for commentary about where we live, is looking for submissions of 300 to 500 words on timely local topics. Submissions must include name, e-mail address, street address and phone number, and they will be edited for brevity and clarity. To submit your article, please go to
washingtonpost.com/localopinions. NEXT WEEK’S TOPIC Black Friday: Did you shop? And are you spending more this year?
DEIRDREM.ENRIGHTANDMATTHEWL.ENGLECHARLOTTESVILLE
‘Miracle’ conviction or another misstep in a mishandled case?
It is hard to imagine a more hollow
and unsatisfying conviction than that of Ingmar Guandique. Twice in 10 years, law enforcement has been hijacked by sensation. Immediately after Chandra Levy’s disappearance, police ignored even the most basic principles of investigation and evidence preservation in favor of allowing themselves to be hypnotized by a sex scandal that turned out to be irrelevant. Years later, Post reporters exposed the negligent investigation and generated the theory ofMr. Guandique’s involvement. Law enforcement was en- tranced once more in search of the public illusion of solving the crime and vindicating its negligent investigation. Ironically, the shoddy investigation si- multaneously left Guandique with little physical evidence with which to defend himself and invited prosecution based on the most dubious and desperate form of “evidence” — the testimony of Guan- dique’s cellmate, who was the linchpin of the prosecution’s case. The fact that there was so little
evidence that Guandique was responsi- ble for Levy’s death may have been one reason that U.S. Attorney Amanda Haines and Levy’s mother called the verdict a “miracle.” Largely due to the work of Innocence
supported the prosecution theory that Guandique is guilty. And the “pillars”? Those would be the five-time convicted felon and the use of other crimes with dissimilar motives to suggest that Guandique committed this one. In fact, there are no pillars in this house of cards. It is shameful that the conviction of Guandique might, as The Post story stated, solidify Haines’s place as a top prosecutor in the U.S. attorney’s office. As a prosecutor, Haines has a responsi- bility beyond getting convictions; she is charged with seeking justice. One of the many painful truths of the Levy murder is that, due to the initial and pervasive incompetence of law enforcement, we may never know how she died or who was involved. The U.S. attorney’s office should not
have prosecuted Guandique or invited a jury to convict him without first devel- oping real evidence of guilt, particular- ly given lawenforcement’s responsibili- ty for destroying or failing to collect all the evidence. The courtroom is no place for “mira-
JACQUELYN MARTIN/ASSOCIATED PRESS Ingmar Guandique in 2009.
Projects, society now accepts that “mira- cles” like Guandique’s conviction often turn out to be cases of wrongful conviction. These cases routinely feature the same issues that appeared in Guandique’s case — a botched police investigation, prosecutorial tunnel vi- sion, reliance on jailhouse informants and, perhaps, jurorswhofeel they owe a conviction to the victim or his or her family.
Last week’s coverage of the verdict in Guandique’s case illustrates the role the press also plays in propping up such irresponsible prosecutions: “Without any forensic evidence, prosecutors based their case on two primary pillars.” But there was forensic evidence — trace DNA from an unknown male discovered on a piece of Levy’s clothing — just none that
cles.” In the future, the DNA found on Chandra Levy’s clothing — determined not to have come from Guandique — may provide actual evidence that an- other perpetrator committed these crimes. Last week’s “miracle” convic-
tion, however, will prove a formidable obsta- cle in following that evidence to the truth. In the meantime, prosecutors spent a lot of taxpayer dollars to obtain a conviction in which no one should have much confidence.
The authors direct the Innocence Project at University of Virginia School of Law.
C5
JANICEL.KAPLANWASHINGTON Phone calls from the Great Recession
I’m hungry. This is how the first call to my cellphone began. Until that point, the human toll of the Great Reces- sion was much less immediate. Two years ago, the Community
Foundation for the National Capi- tal Region established the Neigh- bors in Need Fund to help non- profits meet the growing demand for services in the wake of the economic meltdown. Working with the foundation, I have writ- ten about many individuals and corporations that have supported the fund, which makes grants to groups that provide food, shelter and clothing to the region’s most vulnerable. But until that call, the story had not hit home. Of course, I was aware of the
grim statistics relating to unem- ployment, hunger and foreclo- sures in the region, and I was able to appreciate the depth of the crisis on an intellectual level. I knew that many low- and middle- income families would be left struggling in its wake. But I was emotionally unprepared for the calls from desperate men and women who saw me—astranger whose cellphone number ap- peared on news releases on the
CommunityFoundation’sWeb site —as their last hope. The first call came when I was
on a family vacation. The caller wasa50-year-old livingondisabil- ity benefits in a low-rent apart- mentinWard8,andIsuggestedhe contact Bread for the City, aNeigh- bors inNeedFundgrantee.Hehad already received a three-day sup- ply of groceries from the nonprof- it’s Southeast Center, and he was eligible for more food the first of the month, which was a week away. Through my work I know that
groups like Bread for the City have faced crushing demands for ser- vices and simply can’t keep up with the need. But hunger doesn’t know the difference between the beginning and end of the month. WemailedhimaSafeway gift card, distressed to know it would not arrive for several days. The second call came from a
39-year-old college graduate with a political science degree who had beenlaid offfromhis job, spent his savings and was scared to death about an impending eviction. “I need a miracle,” he said, and then toldmehis story. A sales job brought me to Wash-
ington. In the fall of 2009, things began to unravel. I fell behind on payments, and my car was repos- sessed. Two months later, I was laid off. My number was up. I was behind in my utilities. Behind in my phone payments. My health insurance ran out. There’s a real domino effect. I survived on pea- nut butter sandwiches. I watched out my window as families were evicted from my apartment build- ing; one had relocated here after Hurricane Katrina. Their posses- sions were laid out on the curb. It was heartbreaking. Determined not to let that hap-
pen to me, I prayed, applied for jobs and put the few sentimental possessions I had in a box and stored them at a friend’s house. No matter what happened, I was not willing to have my treasured pos- sessions put out on the curb. Imay not have much in my bank ac- count, but I still havemypride. MyhusbandandI took theman
to lunch and brainstormed about job and housing opportunities. When we parted, he seemed opti- mistic. But we never heard from him again. We don’t know if his prospects improved or darkened. More recently, there was a mes-
sage onmy cell.
I am a substitute teacher and a graduate student. I paid $900 to- ward my rent two weeks ago. Now the house is in foreclosureandthey need me to leave. Immediately. I have no money since I’ve given it all to this current landlord.Hetold me if I leave today or tomorrow he wouldgiveme$200back. That’s it. I don’t know where to turn. I have visitation with my two children ages 6 and 7 and need a place that would accommodate them for visi- tation. The federal government may
have said that the recession is over, but the weak economy has lin- gered. Thousands of our neigh- bors are hungry. Thousands more, who once thought they were se- cure, are on the brink. With miracles in short supply,
our neighbors need
us.The profes- sional distance began to dissolve with that first phone call. If any- thing, the calls and e-mails have helped me to be a better profes-
sional.More important, they have helpedmeto be a better neighbor.
Janice L. Kaplan does communications work for nonprofits in the D.C. region.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158