The D.C. Statehood Vote – The Washington Post, November 20th, 1993
|| 10/14/2009 || 10:28 am || + Render A Comment || ||

The D.C. Statehood Vote

The Washington Post, November 20th, 1993

Today the House of Representatives begins debate on whether the District of Columbia should become a state. The deliberation is historic, as will be the vote expected to follow this weekend. The issue is not the fate of statehood legislation this year: Supporters concede they have little chance of winning. It is whether a lopsided defeat will ultimately cost or break political ground for statehood. D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton contends that even in defeat, a vote `would give the undemocratic treatment of the District the serious national attention it would never attract in any other way.’ If that is the outcome, the statehood debate will be a milestone.

There is, after all, a historic wrong to be set right. The tax-paying, war-fighting citizens of the District, unlike citizens in the 50 states, have no control over their own governmental affairs. As residents of the nation’s capital, they are denied voting representation in the Congress, final word on the budgets and laws they enact, the ability to appoint their own prosecutors and judges and the ability to work out reciprocal taxing arrangements with neighboring jurisdictions. They are at all times subject to the whims of Congress.

We had hoped a way could be found for citizens here to enjoy the full political participation that is their due and still have their city remain the seat of the national government. But the defeat of a proposed constitutional amendment that would have given the District full congressional representation, and congressional inaction on other political reforms, made that outcome impossible. It became apparent that these goals could only be achieved in the context of statehood–but statehood that fulfilled certain clearly understood conditions.

As we said earlier this year, there are critical issues to be faced to make statehood feasible and desirable. We refer to a prenegotiated agreement or understanding with suburban representatives for a limited commuter tax, resolution of the congressionally created unfunded pension liability problem that threatens the District’s financial solvency and a predictable, stable and guaranteed payment to the new state.

Of the three issues, today’s statehood proposal addresses only the payment question. It eliminates the federal payment and replaces it with a payment in lieu of taxes arrangement that mirrors the funding scheme for other states with federal property within their borders. The merits of that alternative, as well as Congress’s role in addressing the other issues that could threaten the new state’s fragile viability, ought to receive a thorough airing this weekend. If a consensus can be reached on how best to approach those outstanding issues, this unprecedented debate, whatever the vote, will take statehood to a new and better place.

This newspaper article was obtained from the Congressional Record in the Library of Congress related to H.R. 51, The New Columbia Admission Act of 1993. The article is not in the public domain but is being republished here under the fair use doctrine of U.S. copyright law in order to continue my advocacy for full representation for the American citizens of the District of Columbia.

ISO – La Haine
|| 11/8/2005 || 7:59 am || Comments Off on ISO – La Haine || ||

So last night while I was coding my “Geospatial Art” layer for Google Earth, I decided to attempt to find a copy of “La Haine,” online, and of course I couldn’t! The film was recently released on DVD, but only with Region 2 encoding (WTF!). I decided to put a posting on craigslist about it the film, and hopefully someone will respond…. I really want to see the film again!

I was thinking about synergistic events and how the riots in France could easily be replicated here in Washington, DC. Granted I am not one to cause destruction of other people’s belongings, read: I am NOT going to do this, but I was thinking last night how poignant it would be to see the marginalized residents of SE Washington, DC burning cars to show the world that poverty exists here in DC as well. The most far-fetched idea that someone came up with was burning 51 cars from Virginia & Maryland in the confines of DC. The 51 cars would represent DC as the 51st state, and the synergistic aspect to this theoretical vandalism is the Supreme Court ruling last week that struck down the commuter tax the District hoped to impose on Maryland & Virginia drivers. Essentially, DC residents are marginalized both economically (some residents) and democratically (all residents), and the destruction of cars from Maryland & Virginia would show the world that the residents are fed up and beginning to fight back.