Why don't we get started?

Good morning to everyone.

This is the press conference that I have before legislative meeting, and tomorrow, March 31st, the council will have a legislative meeting.

Even though it's the month of March, this will be the regular monthly meeting for the council.

Because originally when we scheduled this, we would be on recess on April 7th.

So we're going ahead with tomorrow, and hence we have the press conference today.

The committee of the whole will meet first, and the committee of the whole will be marking up six measures.

Two are symbolic name designations, transfer and recognition tax appeals amendment act, one front door amendment act, uh the one front door amendment act uh is a modification to the building code.

So the buildings uh below, I think it's four stories, can have one entrance for egress and ingress and egress rather than two.

Um I know that when I first looked at this bill, I thought that was a little bit weird and a little bit odd that there would be uh we would go from two entrances to one.

Uh it uh evidently is in the code in a number of other cities, I believe New York City.

And uh when we had the public hearing, the statistics uh, which to me was uh compelling, are that uh when there is a fire in an apartment building, uh people are not dying because they cannot get out of the building.

Uh they're actually dying in their apartment if they die.

Um so the notion that you have to have uh two points of entry and exit uh statistically just is not borne out as necessary.

There are some other requirements.

Uh for instance, there has to be a sprinkler system, because that's what really makes a difference in terms of fires and fatalities.

Uh there's some other uh building code requirements, which I do not remember offhand.

Uh but all of that together, uh the statistics are overwhelming that um uh one one um as the bill is entitled, one front door is adequate.

So that's being marked up.

Motor vehicle insurance modernization, which would be the first update to our minimum insurance requirements for motor vehicles.

This will be the first update since I believe 1986.

Um, although my staff told me we may not have a fiscal impact statement yet because I believe ORA has been consumed with the mayor's budget, and um in which case we'll just move it two weeks until we have the um fiscal impact statement.

There are um other measures that were reported out of committees.

Um the library ebook licensing fairness amendment act um and uh two, three nominations, confirmations of mayor's nominations for the Board of Library Trustees.

The um library ebook licensing fairness, uh if you're interested, I recommend you read the report because the report is much better than whatever I'm gonna be able to say.

But uh essentially this is uh an act that we've seen adopted similar form in other states.

When there are, I think it's a minimum of ten states that have adopted similar legislation.

Uh there'll be enough uh states who are participating that this will affect uh the prices that the e-book sellers are charging, which apparently is phenomenally high.

And um, that's what this is about is um trying to force to the market a reduction in the fees that libraries have to pay for e-books.

There are also several nominations to the Greek Green Finance Authority Board and the uh DC Water and Sewer Authority Board.

Uh that's the committee of the whole.

So that last part uh beginning with the library discussion is all reported out of other committees, so not for markup in the committee as a whole.

We have a legislative meeting to follow.

There will be um, I'm not gonna go over everything, but final reading on the school's first amendment act of 2026.

You all will remember that uh several years ago the council adopted a bill called School's First in Budgeting Amendment Act that um essentially says that on the individual school level uh in DCPS that schools budgets from one year to the next cannot be cut, but have to be maintained and in fact increased with an inflationary factor, which could be equal to the UPSFF increase or the CBA collective bargaining agreement uh teacher increase.

What this bill does, it's getting final reading tomorrow is to have one other inflationary factor, and it's the hire of the several inflationary factors.

And what we're adding is uh an increase in the average position cost.

If this sounds very technical, it probably is.

But the goal here is to maintain stable funding in our individual schools.

I think this is a reason why we're seeing improvements in test results in schools, also reduction in teacher turnover and principal turnover, because this budget stability really enables uh school and the school leader to build from one year to the next.

And I'm happy to answer questions about that in a moment.

The Holding Company System Amendment Act, which is final reading, completely boring title, but it basically what it does is it maintains Disby in compliance with uh federal regulatory requirements.

And um it's not controversial.

The um the exchanges were supposed to go into effect uh last year.

Uh we were given a bit of a stay as long as this legislation is moving, which is why it's moving.

And uh price gouging bill, seasonal pricing and price gouging amendment act um simplifies our price gouging law when there is an emergency, so that essentially it's tied to what the prices are rather than trying to figure out what changes are in the wholesale market.

Um I'm gonna skip to the uh non-consent agenda.

The um 2607 Connecticut Avenue and 411 Kansas Avenue Northwest Timeline Extension, tax forgiveness.

Those are two properties that are owned by and developed by, so others might need or some.

Uh the 2607 Connecticut Avenue was budgeted.

The Kansas property was not, so it's subject to appropriations.

Uh it's another effort to try to support uh affordable housing.

In this case, I believe uh tied to uh vouchers.

The uh looking at the um emergencies, I'm not going to go through all of them.

The um I will say the uh Nationals ballpark amended and restated lease emergency I'm circulating amendment of nature of a substitute, which essentially is just reflects General Counsel's uh edits.

Uh but this um when we adopt this, we are one step closer, if not all the way toward a lease extension for the nationals.

Of course, I don't remember the year, but I think it's 2054, it might be 2059, uh and that's a good thing.

And it provides for ongoing maintenance of the Nationals ballpark, which the city owns uh from the revenues that are generated from the stadium.

So it's not going to be uh an effect on the uh general fund.

Um the juvenile curfew sunset uh this is just continuing the um curfew.

And um if somebody asked me if the votes are there, I'm gonna say I think they are.

Uh there's a disapproval resolution regarding a fire truck purchase.

There's been um quite a bit of um feedback that the proposed vendor has not done a good job in other jurisdictions, and so we I think the council is going to proceed with disapproving that.

Um open meetings, which I suspect some of you will ask you just the wrong constituency for me to be talking about the open meetings bill, but that's just maintaining the status quo without changes.

I was told on my way into the room that there is a rumor that this is the permanent legislation it's not.

Uh it's just emergency and temporary again.

Um I think I'll leave it there.

And oh um.

There is, as you know, the motion to override the mayor's veto, and I suspect there will be questions about that.

Um the legislation was part of two bills dealing with um ICE activities, immigration and custom enforcement ICE activities in the city.

The mayor signed one and revetoed the other.

Uh both uh were approved by the council unanimously.

Um so that override is on the agenda.

Happy to take questions.

Ben.

Uh thank you, Chairman.

Um, Ben Peters, the Washington Business Journal.

Um I'm wondering procedurally about the single stair bill.

The committee of the whole is going to mark it up.

Is that then going to be put on the consent agenda at the legislative meeting or introduced at to be heard at all?

Probably will be on the consent agenda.

And they're put on consent unless somebody asks that it's on non-consent.

And that will be a final reading?

No, first reading.

First reading.

Okay, got it.

Have you talked to other members of the council about that bill?

And do you know where they stand?

The honest answer is no, I have not.

There was very little controversy at the hearing.

I think I have to remember, I think the executive expressed some unease.

But otherwise, I think there was overwhelming support for the legislation.

As I said, I I don't have the statistics in front of me.

I'll have the report in front of me tomorrow, and I will talk about this then in in better detail.

But as I said, the statistics are overwhelming that the uh ingress egress is just not a factor in um personal injury uh when there's a fire.

And I think you'll be supporting that's why I am moving the bill.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Um on the juvenile curfew, a couple questions.

First off, why do you think it's necessary to keep extending this?

I mean, we have the curfew in place, and we're still seeing these mass meetups of kids, kids going to these large gatherings with guns or other um items on them.

So is this actually working?

Is it doing anything?

Um I would say uh the view of at least a majority of elected officials is that uh we should just maintain this status quo for the time being.

Uh there still are some issues, as you noted, with uh juvenile gatherings, and the um curfew is another tool that uh the police can use.

If I remember correctly, maybe this is from a previous debate there hadn't been any arrests under it, which is a good thing.

Uh and I think that's also what the goal is for law enforcement, that they really don't want to be arresting kids.

They want to just um move them on and break them up in group in when they're in large groups.

And if I remember correctly, the curfew is uh groups of eight or more.

And I know that originally there was talks about doing uh putting forth the permanent legislation on this this um month.

That's not happening.

We're just looking at extending it again.

So um can you just remind me where you stand on the idea of making this a permanent tool versus continuing to extend the emergency?

Uh I don't want to get ahead of the committee, so I think you're gonna have to ask the committee, and at the moment I don't remember what Councilmember Pinto's plan is for uh permanent legislation.

And and going off of that, Chairman, how do you uh uh personally feel about the um extended juvenile curfew zones?

Um, on an emergency basis.

I don't have a problem with extending it on an emergency basis.

And as I said, I think the uh the view, and this is certainly my view, is that for the moment it's best to continue the maintain the status quo.

Um I wish that we were not thinking in terms of a curfew.

Um, it may just be that there have to be some other factors in in place.

We've had this this phenomenon in the last couple of years of large groups of juveniles getting together, hundreds, maybe more than hundreds.

Uh we saw it at National Harbor, they imposed a curfew of sorts.

And um so we kind of have to get past that trend.

As well, the uh MPD is what, 3100 officers, and even though we're trying to uh when I say we, I mean the government is trying to uh recruit more officers, there just aren't the applicants.

And I just want to make that point clear, because it's easy to point fingers at, let's say, the council, or we could point fingers at the mayor, and in both cases uh that would be wrong.

There just aren't the applicants.

And it's because ever since George Floyd's murder and the controversy around that, policing has been uh less popular.

Uh and that that will change.

And can you talk about what makes you think you have the votes?

When we had spoken with Councilmember Pinto previously, she didn't think she had the votes to pass this.

Yeah, I can't speak for why she would have said that.

And uh she my last conversation, she had not indicated that.

But can you express why you feel you have the votes to pass this again?

Well, I think it will be close.

Uh but my estimate is that the votes will be there.

Yes, okay.

Um thanks, Chairman.

On the open meetings, uh, is that something you would like to be a permanent policy in DC?

Um at least some variation of it.

The um I've said this before that what the uh the bill is about is uh dealing with the need to have conversations that are not public.

Uh that's not action.

And uh the legislation is quite clear that uh if there is to be action that that has to be at an open meeting.

Uh but there have to be conversations, and we've seen that over and over again.

Um I know you guys all have a job to do, and your job includes uh trying to um um I guess uh reveal as much as possible about what's going on in the decision making process.

Uh but sometimes uh the discussion around that um is better if folks elected are able to speak um speak as candidly as possible.

This is uh a problem that I see in the uh legislative branch more than the executive branch.

The last I checked, there's only one elected official in the executive branch, and so when she wants to have a conversation with herself, it's you know just with herself.

And of course she can have that confidential discussion and as well with her aides.

But the the legislative branch is always different.

And um as I said, it's about the ability to have conversations and candid conversations.

Um on the motion to override the mayor's veto on the um Hold the mic up a little higher.

Oh on the motion to override the mayor's veto on the um policy about recording federal agents actions and presence at a ras.

Um do you think there are the votes to override the veto?

And then also have you heard anything from Congress about their views on the policy?

Uh I have um I've only talked to a couple of members at this point with regard to the uh veto override, and I would be more comfortable if I had spoken to all of them.

The um since the bill was approved unanimously, I I think that uh unless there's something else that comes up that uh the votes would be there for the override.

Well, it's hard to say.

Uh we've been testing that.

Um, the um the challenge and the reason why I'm hesitating a little here is that the two bills are similar in that they both deal with ICE enforcement.

One is body worn cameras, which you feel remembered Councilmember Robert White had in his bill as well.

He took that out because of the first bill.

The mayor signed that bill.

Uh and the second bill deals with uh the uh incident reports that the MPD fills out.

Um the because the two bills are similar in that way, both dealing with ICE, and because one of them was signed by the mayor, there is no question but that this is going to go to Congress.

We can't avoid that.

And uh so I'm not sure it makes much difference that this if the second bill is overrid the veto is overridden and it joins the first bill before Congress.

The issue of ICE in the district and uh legislation is going to be before members regardless.

Um I think that if there are I I don't have any, I mean, I've been surprised every time the Congress has taken up a measure because that was just not happening until two years ago.

And uh so I I can't guess whether it will come up again.

But I suspect that if this one comes up, that is that there's an effort by members and typically it's Republicans uh to step in and interfere with the district.

Uh the debate will be about ice.

And as we've seen, Congress already is um um deadlocked over that, but uh there they are more than anxious or willing, eager to talk about ice.

And on the one side, how important it is to lock up innocent people, and on the other side, how important it is to respect due process and recognize that bona fide citizens are getting hurt in the process, and that this is um just really the operations have been quite nasty.

If I can clarify off of that, um are your thoughts similar as it relates to your bill with Councilmember Pinto, the the body cam legislation.

Were you talking about both bills at that point?

Yes.

Okay.

I'm curious where you stand on it today and whether or not you're going to support it on Thursday.

Well, I have to uh look at all the briefing materials that were before the before National Capital Planning Commissioner N C PC.

I have not done that.

I will note that even though uh, let's see, when this first came up before NCPC in February, there were going to be no changes made.

In fact, there were changes made between um February and March presentations.

Uh we'll see if there have been any additional changes.

I am disturbed about the height.

I am disturbed about the massing.

It overwhelms this uh wing of the White House is going to overwhelm the main building.

That has been a concern.

I don't fully understand why it can't be uh either reduced in height, if I remember correctly, I asked the architect at the last meeting why it needed to have a 40-foot ceiling, why it couldn't be 38 feet or 36 feet, something lower.

Um, why it couldn't be uh depressed in the ground more?

Uh I think there are ways to deal with the height issue.

Um I don't fully understand the um massing in the sense that now you're taxing my memory.

I think it's 150 square feet per participant invite individual who comes to a ballroom event.

But uh for this, it's going to be considerably larger.

I don't remember how much larger, I'll just say considerably larger.

And when I asked that question, I got an answer that was not completely persuasive.

Um yes, the uh ballroom event at the White House would have TV cameras.

I've been to ballroom events in other venues in the city where uh there have been TV cameras, so I don't get that uh in terms of additional space.

Uh security.

Um that just feels like they're coming up with a list of needs.

Um I don't know why security would require so much more.

Are they all those the Secret Service going to be sitting at tables?

I don't think so.

So um I'm gonna look at that more closely uh before we get to the uh Thursday vote.

But I am planning on being there.

Similarly, um NCPC is going to be doing another review of the commander's stadium plan.

Yeah.

Um one point that kind of has been raised is the rendering showing parking, the two parking decks, both of which the team says could be 110 feet tall, which is I mean, you know the height act.

I mean, that's pretty close.

Uh so what do you think about the size of these parking decks?

Do you have any concerns about that?

Yeah, I'm not sure that would violate the height act, but I'm not sure.

No, no, I'm not saying violate.

I'm just saying in terms of the government.

Yeah, well, you know, the height act is actually um the height of a building in relationship to the street.

And there's a lot of setback here.

That doesn't change the fact that 110 feet does strike me as too high, and that is something that will be looked at.

Now I've not I have not been the one who's attended those discussions.

Uh I have a member of my staff who's delegated.

Uh but we will be talking about that.

Because I when the commanders were before the council last year, I had no sense it was they were looking at 11-story parking garages.

Which I guess the bottom line is yeah, the height bothers me.

Yes, Mr.

Rice.

Hi.

There was some talk recently uh on the campaign trail, if I may say, of uh enacting a business activity tax, which uh I'm sure you remember was proposed by the business uh the tax revision commission.

Is there any movement in the council for that?

Uh there's been talk about it.

Um it's way too soon to say anything about movement.

Budget hasn't been submitted, and uh there have not been uh the meetings between members uh to talk about uh how we approach the budget.

So I uh it's just too soon to say whether there's movement as you ask.

Uh I will say this.

Um the business activity tax, yes, was in the list of proposals from the tax revision commission, which, as you know, never did adopt a final report or adopt recommendations.

So I'd have to say it was in their draft list.

I uh at the last hearing oversight hearing that I had with the chief financial officer asked about the business activity tax, and he said that it would take at least a year before they would be able to implement it.

I uh at the last hearing, oversight hearing that I had with the Chief Financial Officer asked about the business activity tax, and he said that it would take at least a year before they would be able to implement it, which means that if anyone is looking to FY27, which is the budget we'll be getting, and the business activity tax being uh a solution to some of the challenges, that won't work.

The business activity tax can't be implemented that quickly.

The um tax revis this is important.

The tax revision commission, when it looked at this, looked at that in conjunction with other business taxes with an eye toward the business activity tax, enabling the reduction or elimination of other business taxes like the personal property tax.

Residents don't pay a personal property tax, they probably have not a clue what I'm talking about.

Uh if anyone remembers, but this would actually be probably older residents, the debate over the car tax in Virginia, that was a personal property tax.

Uh personal property taxes are very difficult.

They're difficult to administer, they're difficult to ensure that there is honesty on the part of filers because they identify what personal property they have and they identify what the value is of it.

Um the revenue from the personal property tax to business's pay is considerable.

So something like a business activity tax, which would broaden the tax base, that's good, or you want to broaden your tax base, um, but then offset existing taxes so that the hit on businesses is actually favorable.

Uh where we would get the additional revenue, the net additional revenue would be from broadening the base.

Uh but I think a lot of the advocates aren't looking at it that way.

They're looking at the business activity tax as an add-on to existing taxes.

And that I think would be very harmful to businesses, because it's just increasing their tax burden.

Um the franchise rate, as I recall, is equal to Maryland and higher than Virginia.

The personal property tax, I actually don't remember the comparison, but we also have the um the paid leave fee, universal pay leave fee, which is went from 22 cents to 75 cents a couple of years ago per employee.

And um the um so when you add up all of those and then you put on top of that the business activity tax, you're creating a considerably greater burden on businesses.

That was not the thinking of the tax revision commission.

They're thinking was that you would eliminate or reduce some other business taxes, come out with a net gain.

Do we have a personal property tax in the businesses?

We do in the district?

Yes.

Do I pay it?

Businesses.

Are you in business?

I am not a business.

Maybe you should be since you are here.

Um Martin relatedly but slightly different.

Um any updates on the the situation with the budget?

Has it been sent down from the mayor to the CFO?

Are you satisfied with after that back and forth that you had with the CFO about who is to blame for it having been turned in or not being turned in on time?

Um I'm not sure I want to go the full distance that I want to go.

The uh as far as I know You should.

The um executive is not at pencils down.

Uh it is an iterative process with the uh Chief Financial Officer.

I have said uh to the CFO that I don't believe his office is acting with the requisite level of urgency.

Um my understanding, for example, is that the first iteration of the financial plan to the executive took five days to produce.

Um the revenue estimates are February 28th and pencil's down date that the CFO is imposed, is roughly March 21st.

Uh that's what, three weeks, and when you take roughly a week, five days to uh turn around the first draft of the financial plan, uh there's just not the urgency that needs to be there.

You know, when the council has the budget, we um we have a deadline and uh roughly 56 days, and trust me, we are working weekends and nights, and we we're not we are not um taking five days to, oh hey, budget office, this is what I think the numbers are.

Give me an answer by next uh next Monday.

Well, we don't operate like that.

And the Chief Financial Officer needs to have more urgency here.

The 10-day pencil down is a creation of the Chief Financial Officer, I think it was two years ago.

Um years past, the executive would get the budget with some changes, maybe three days from the submission.

Um I think there could be more flexibility there as well.

And just quickly, are there any consequences to the to the to the mayor not submitting this to the council by the April 1st of 11th?

There are consequences.

It has to do with freezing uh MPS payments or MPS payments and reprogrammings.

In my view, they're kind of tepid, but it's clear to me, I want to emphasize this.

It's an iterative process, and it's an iterative process when the council has to budget.

A committee says that we want to um the committee says it wants to uh reduce uh uh funding in a particular line in an agency, and that's run by the agency fiscal officer.

Our budget office runs it by the agency fiscal officer.

There's a lot of checking, cross-checking, double checking, and rechecking that goes on.

And in that process, I want to emphasize iterative.

We're getting feedback from the AFO, we're getting feedback maybe from the agency.

And uh based on that, then there may be a another idea or a refinement.

That iterative process requires some urgency.

So I think I want to reduce your budget by uh a million dollars.

I tell you, and uh you give me a response, it's the end of the world, I ask you why it's the end of the world, you tell me, I say, really, that's not the end of the world.

But maybe if we reduce it a little bit, that's the point.

There's a back and forth.

Uh taking so the executive works with the CFO on that iterative process, and just taking five days is just not acceptable.

So I hope I'm sharing the blame.

Jenny.

Um sorry, just going back to something from before.

You mentioned that you, if you were asked today, does the curfew have the votes?

You said you think it would.

There was, I guess I would describe it as like chatter last week that there wouldn't be the votes in the council.

So I'm wondering if that was even the case, and if so, what changed?

I'm not sure my answer is going to change.

It was a question over here, then we'll come back.

Well, let's go over there.

Um just sorry.

Back to the um ballroom question again.

Uh I know you said you had some concerns about that.

Have you seen uh the president yesterday apparently said that the military is building a massive complex beneath uh the planned ballroom privately funded and then it's ahead of schedule.

Have you heard anything about that?

No, I have not.

Okay.

Um and just back one more time.

If you could reiterate uh on the Robert White's bill that you guys are looking to override the veto, just your original support for that part of the MPD ICE uh legislation, um, why you supported that in the first place?

Well, my name was on one of the bills with Councilmember Pinto, but I voted for both bills.

I wish that the district could go further.

And as far as what some other states have done.

Um we are feeling very constrained given that uh the district without statehood is still a federal district.

Uh so I think that the proposals are reasonable in saying that MPD body worn camera footage has to be available, and saying that an MPD officer, if he or she is writing a report, has to include the names of all the officers who are present.

I think there's a little bit more information required.

I believe it's also um if feasible, so it's not like the MPD officer has to go running after a federal agent.

Um I think all of that is reasonable.

There's way too much anonymity, and with anonymity, there's an avoidance of accountability.

Uh that's the problem with the masks, is that um it avoids accountability.

And the reasons that are given for ICE wearing masks, well, maybe if their behaviors wasn't so Gestapo-like, um, they wouldn't be so afraid.

But I think that uh MPD officers in the ordinary course of enforcement, you know, they arrest somebody.

Um they I just have not heard an issue about their being afraid of their not being anonymous.

I've never heard a complaint from MPD that they have to wear masks, and I think the work they do is actually more at r more risky, if you will, uh, except for how ICE behaves and their tactics.

So uh these both of these bills go at accountability.

And if I remember correctly, both bills are tied to when there is use of force.

So it's not like every interaction.

Um does that answer your question?

Yes.

Thank you.

You had a question.

Uh tomorrow is the last day of the DC streetcar.

What were your hopes for this project and what's your message to taxpayers who help fund the millions on this just for it to come to an end?

Well, I I think it's uh sad that uh the streetcar is coming to an end.

Um I don't think there is the money there to continue to support the operations.

I thought that the streetcar, even though it was of a limited segment, a short segment, was a a um characteristic of the H Street Northeast corridor and therefore could be a positive.

It's also my sense that the city could have done more to support the um the uh streetcar on 8th Street.

Um I mean, they just kind of pretty much ran the line uh but didn't do anything else that could have uh attracted more ridership and more support.

Um but I'm also reminded that ten years ago I was lambasted because I didn't support um pouring hundreds of millions of additional dollars into an extension up George Avenue and an extension to Georgetown, and I think even an extension to Southeast.

I mean hundreds of millions of dollars.

And um just the way that the um streetcar has been run, it it didn't take the place of the bus service on H Street, so it really was more uh a characteristic of that neighborhood and a a positive characteristic.

So I think um there are lessons I'd like to say lessons learned, but I don't know who learned them.

Uh I'm just amazed at the zeal with which former district elected officials were promoting the hundreds of millions of dollars of spending, and let's spend more.

And let's spend them more on top of that.

Um and then here we are seeing it being shut down completely.

Very unfortunate.

Was it doomed to begin with, or would putting more in and getting the word out more could that have helped?

Is it hard to say?

I don't know that it ever would have been a moneymaker.

Uh but if the district government had put more behind it.

So I mean the planning, the way it was put in place was more about speed of implementing it than it was thoughtfulness of what's the best way to run it.

I remember uh one of the uh D DOT officials under council uh under Mayor Fenty coming in and swearing to me it was just a matter of months before they'd have an agreement for the streetcar to turn into Union Station, which would be a logical um terminus.

Um never happened because the planning was it was what shoot first aim later um spend first plan later.

Um it it should have gone across the river to, in my view, to the uh Minnesota Avenue uh subway stop.

That would have been a logical end.

I'm not quite sure who goes to 23rd or Oklahoma Avenue.

I mean there are some residents, of course, but that's not a logical terminus for the line, uh just was not thought through.

And uh so yet doomed from the start because of lack of planning and uh lack of um follow-through with some of the support that was needed, like fixing those both of those terminuses.

And do you know more about the housing reform hearing that's going on today at Council Member Madoz?

Okay, I do not, but I'm being told that I'm out of time.

So maybe one last question if there is one.

Martin.

I mean, just on the streetcar, you you do say the DC government didn't support it.

You seem to exclude yourself from not supporting the streetcar.

I mean, there was you cut funding more.

Right, but one of the criticisms is H Street failed because it was a single line, not part of a network.

And the council did decent.

I understand that criticism, but I don't agree with the network.

And I don't agree with the network because that would have been hundreds of millions of dollars or more money.

And not only did the city not have it, but there was not the proof that it would uh attract the ridership that would really make a difference.

Really make a difference in terms of getting people out of their automobiles or really make a difference in terms of um supplementing uh bus.

I mean, just that just wasn't there.

That case was not made.

So I never supported the network.

And um that's actually gonna get me a little agitated that question, because it's like, oh, it didn't work because we needed to spend another billion or two.

Um that's just a luxury the government should not be pursuing.

I think I'll have to call it quits there.

I'll see you all tomorrow.

We have a breakfast beforehand, which is open.

As they always are.

Thank you.