Why don't we get started?

This is the um briefing that I do before a legislative meeting, typically before a regular legislative meeting.

Tomorrow is actually not a regular legislative meeting, it's an additional meeting, but it is also the last meeting before the summer recess for the council.

Feels a little different this summer than last summer when uh we had our last meeting on August 1st and uh adopted the budget, I think on July 23rd or something.

And this year we were done with the budget what several weeks ago.

Uh there's not a lot happening tomorrow.

I would say probably the most uh um important is final reading on the resale act and also first reading on the um uh legislation dealing with the initiative process.

We're gonna start uh tomorrow with a uh committee of the whole meeting at the committee of the whole, the committee of the whole will be marking up something like uh eight resolutions.

The um there are four revenue bond projects, which the committee of the whole had a hearing on, gosh, back in early June.

I don't think there's anything controversial there.

A number of uh confirmations in the committee of the whole for markup.

The only one that I would think is noteworthy is Board of Zoning Adjustment simply because the Board of Zoning Adjustment has been without a quorum, and uh the uh mayor uh sent us that she sent three nominations a month ago, maybe six weeks ago.

We moved two of them, the third was withdrawn.

Uh the mayor submitted Robin Wells, and uh so we're marking her up tomorrow.

Uh so I think the only vacancy left on the Board of Zoning Adjustment at this point will be the NCPC designee.

Um the other committees are doing moving quite a number of measures.

Um a lot of it is uh permanent versions of bills that have been adopted on an emergency basis.

There are some uh confirmations to the police complaints board.

Uh the uh board of elections are two confirmations there.

The um happy to answer questions on that, but uh everything on the committee, the whole agenda will be on the legislative agenda, and uh the legislative agenda.

As I noted, uh the uh probably the most um important issues are the um resale act, which is dealing with uh the resale of tickets to entertainment events on the uh secondary market, although the legislation does affect the primary market.

The um, and I'm I've heard that there'll probably be some be some amendments tomorrow, but I have not seen any.

Uh there also is on an emergency basis.

I'm moving a measure to uh delay the real property tax sale.

That's uh simply to give time to work out some issues given uh recent Supreme Court decisions concerning the um sale of property due to unpaid taxes.

So um I expect that I'll be introducing a bill today or tomorrow to uh get the ball rolling on amending the law regarding the tax sale process.

There's another bill that I'm moving uh on emergency basis, the restoration of Covenant Roads is just to clarify so that we have these uh what are uh I could say private alleys, but they really don't belong to anybody, and yet there are a number of property owners who rely on them as well as city services, and they're not being um maintained because nobody owns them or is responsible for taking care of them.

The city uses them, and so we're trying to make it clear through these uh let these bills.

There was one a couple years ago that I moved that uh uh DDOT should be coming in and fixing these alleys uh so that they can be used uh and be used for public purposes.

Uh so the alley that uh was the genesis for this emergency tomorrow is off of Morris Road in Ward 8, and um in really bad condition.

Um the uh council goes on uh recess beginning the 15th, and uh that is not a time off.

It's just a time when the uh council will not be having hearings, and uh therefore we'll be in a better position as staff will be in a better position to work on bills for uh consideration in the fall.

We are moving toward the end of the council period, and so I expected this fall, especially uh the last meeting in October, the first meeting, couple meetings in November, the agenda will be quite heavy with legislation, and that's what staff will be working on during the recess.

Um I think I'll leave it there and uh take questions on whatever if there are questions.

Can you say more about um why the tax sales being canceled and what proposal you're going to put forth to change the process of it?

Well, um the uh I believe what we are filing says that the tax sale could occur after September 22nd, which is when our next meeting will be.

Um the chief financial chief financial officer says that in actuality the delay will be later than that um just because it will take time.

Uh, there are issues with regard to the uh treatment of I'll say profit, maybe I shouldn't call it profit, income from the tax sale that is above the uh taxes that are owed, and what is to happen with that income.

And um, so we're trying to work that out, but the legislative change would be.

Can you be a little bit more precise about what you mean by that?

Well, if I was more precise, then I would have the legislative language.

Um the Supreme Court in a couple of cases has addressed the issue of um I'll call it excess profits from the from these tax sales.

So let's say that uh the property owes uh $30,000 in taxes.

Uh the property is valued at uh $500,000 and it sells for $500,000.

What's to happen with the uh excess uh over what is owed uh from the uh in taxes, um and to be honest with you, I'm not clear whether it is the person who buys the property at the tax sale who manages to profit from this, or it's the city.

Uh, but in either event, the Supreme Court has said that um the property owner, even though he she or it was delinquent in taxes, still is entitled to some portion of that uh equity.

And so that's what we're trying to address.

And so, in effect, then anybody uh any property owner whose tax lien was listed for sale on the on the on the tax sale this year year now has more time to pay their tax bill or is the deadline fixed still if I think it's a good idea.

No, they a person can pay their tax bill up to I believe it's six months after the sale.

Okay.

Got it.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, chairman.

Right now, uh there's a hearing on the autonomous vehicle bill.

What are your thoughts uh on the bill and do you feel those types of cars should be allowed in the district?

Um I don't think we have a choice, but that uh those via the you know technology is changing and that we will have autonomous vehicles on our streets.

I think that uh um contrary thought is trying to hold back technological progress.

That doesn't mean there shouldn't be some regulation, and which is why legislation is completely appropriate.

Uh I don't have a firm view on the legislation that's pending.

I think the hearing today is an important part of sorting out what uh the what disagreements there are with regard to provisions in the bill, but I am aware there are some folks who believe that we just should not have autonomous vehicles, that it will put Uber drivers, Lyft drivers out of business.

Of course, one could argue that Uber drivers and Lyft drivers put taxicab drivers out of business.

And maybe one could argue that uh taxicab drivers put um livery stables out of business.

I mean, there is progress, and uh whether we like it or not, and uh so I don't think that that in itself should be the determining factor with regard to the legislation.

There are more important issues, and they are um issues such as uh liability if there's an accident, and uh what is the greatest assurance that the public is safe with driverless vehicles?

Um, of course, also consumer protection in terms of making sure that uh passengers in these driverless vehicles are um are getting what they're paying for.

And a lot of us have seen the driverless vehicles with drivers in them, but driving around the district, presumably to map out the streets.

Is this something that did they have to get prior approval from the council to do this?

Is this something you were aware of ahead of time?

Um, well, I don't share transportation and environment committee, so I would not be the one to ask the question about being aware ahead of time.

Um I have seen those vehicles just as you have.

The council was not required to be involved in the um authorization for testing.

And going off of that, um, at the hearing today, uh Waymo said they've already committed tens of millions in DC to build facilities to support this, um, is that something you were aware of?

Um it it almost makes it seem like it's a done deal that the council will pass this through that they've already put all this money in.

Well, um if I was an investor wanting to develop a business here, I certainly would present it as if it's a done deal.

And I don't mean that as a criticism, but that would be um an explanation for why it sounds that way to you.

Uh of course they've invested a lot of money.

Um, they want to um operate in this market.

And uh I'm aware that they are operating in other cities.

Uh we can look to those cities with regard to um where there have been uh good things and where there have been uh some problems and then uh that would help better inform the legislation that we have.

Is it safe to say you're indifferent at this point, or are you wanting to put more safeguards?

I just want to clarify your thoughts.

Yeah, I know I'm trying not to be too specific here, because I have not looked at the bill, and more importantly, I do not know how the committee transportation committee will be uh revising the bill.

I assume they will, and uh so I don't know what the final proposal will be.

So it's too soon for me to have a position on it.

Okay, so you think a majority of the council supports driverless?

I have no idea whether I have not talked with other members about this, Sam.

Well, first peace and blesses happy Monday.

Thank you.

Happy almost recess.

Uh I wanted to go to the um ballot initiative uh first reading.

Yes.

Um, there's been a bit of pushback or better yet, concern just about the timing of the legislation, the implications of it in terms of just how uh provisions of it could prevent future initiatives from coming forward.

Wanted to get your thoughts on that.

You know, what what value do you see the bill having in terms of just changing the process or what do you hope to see from the outcome of this bill rather?

I think the initiative process in the District of Columbia is long overdue for some reform.

Uh what we've seen in recent years is much more participation by out of state interests.

That is constitutionally protected.

However, I don't think that uh voters are aware of to what extent uh these initiatives are or are not locally driven and what the interests are behind them.

We've also seen in uh recent years uh issues such as multiple uh multiple issues on in one initiative measure, and that is concerning.

I'm not sure that the bill that will be before us tomorrow completely answers that it says that it can only be a single subject, but then defines that as germane and germane is um not as precise a word or terminology as I think there should be in the bill.

Um I continue to have concerns about the um fact that for four decades it was quite clear that initiatives that had an impact on the budget would not be appropriate or proper subject for initiative that's in the Home Rule Act.

Um that's been reinterpreted in recent years, so the bill could cost a lot of money, and as long as it has language in it that says, well, but the council will have to pay for this.

Well, let me rephrase that that it's subject to appropriation, then it doesn't have a budgetary impact.

I think that's um a sight of hand, if you will.

Um, if if a proposal costs five million dollars to implement, but it's subject to appropriation, it still costs five million dollars to implement.

And uh so we're seeing more initiatives now that have a cost, and uh therefore um put pressure on the council to fund it.

Now, one could argue that uh while this is a very democratic process.

The reality is that um the initiative process is a couped tool for legislating.

Uh there is a drafter of the legislative language in the initiative, no opportunity for an amendment process, no opportunity for a public hearing.

You could say the election is a public hearing, but then it's followed with a yes or no vote.

And uh unlike with the council, where we have uh, in fact, last week I had a hearing on 10 tax bills, and I expect that every one of them will see revisions to the legislative language as a result of the hearing.

That's what the better legislative process is.

It's a deliberative process, it's one that allows for amendments, it's one that expects that there will be some changes, and that's not what happens with initiatives.

Uh I would add as well that I have seen in recent years where there have been short summaries of uh the initiatives of summary statement on the ballot that I think is misleading.

Um the law says that it has to be um uh neutral.

Are you specific on that?

Which ballot is well, just one example that comes to mind immediately was the 2018 initiative on the TIP wages that said it was to ensure that uh workers get the minimum wage.

Well, the law requires to get the minimum wage.

It was to re restructure the way the minimum wage, um so that's an example of a misleading summary.

Um the uh initiative a couple years ago with regard to ranked choice voting that had ranked choice voting as well as open primary.

That's uh mixing of subjects, and you know, unlike the legislative process, whether we're talking about the council's legislature or Congress as a legislature or any state as a legislature where there can be amendments, and the um can the example of uh that I just gave uh perhaps uh the open primary is separated from the ranked choice voting, or because we have two readings, uh there could be changes to each of them, but none of that's possible.

There's none of that flexibility with the initiative process, and then Sam, you've been around long enough to have heard controversy that if the council amends anything, then um it's um violating the will of the voters.

Uh there's sort of like this hands off argument.

So it's I would say the initiative process is um fraught.

There is uh value to giving voters an opportunity to bring forth a proposal for enactment into law, but um it has evolved over the years, and it's it's overdue for some reform.

So uh of course I can go to limbs to find this, but it has gone through committee already, of course, and there's been the bill that's up for tomorrow, yeah.

Yes, it went through um, there actually were two bills, one I introduced, one that council member bonds introduced.

There were been hearings on it, it was marked up in committee last week.

Got you.

Got you.

Uh I wanted to move on um real quick uh to the letter that you and 12 of your colleagues sent to Michigan Governor Whitmer and Virgin Islands Governor Bryan.

Uh, have you received a response yet?

No, but uh it's possible that Councilmember Robert White, who took the lead on this, has, but I doubt it.

The letter was just sent.

Got you.

Uh, of course, you know, to your point, he did take the lead, Councilmember Robert White, but I wanted to get your thoughts on just um I guess the effectiveness of a letter like that, given, you know, DC's current situation, lack of you know, statehood, you know, limited home rule, things like that.

What value do you see in sending a letter?

What kind of teeth does that have?

Well, I think it has benefit, absolutely, because um it is the state legislature, that's us speaking in one voice to say that uh the presence of the guard is problematic.

You know that there is still litigation pending, unfortunately moving very slow.

Uh I think some of that has to do with the uh stalling tactics by the federal government and uh the uh district one at the trial level with an injunction that got stayed pending appeal.

The arguments on that, or the rather yeah, I think oral argument is in uh September, if I remember correctly.

Um I would say it's fair to say that the district government deeply resents the presence of the National Guard on our streets.

Um, and let me be clear, it's not so much that what the soldiers are doing is problematic, um in the sense that we've seen with ICE shooting citizens in other cities, but the presence of uniform military, maybe I uniform is the wrong word, um military and camouflage fatigues on our streets is just a very bad image for a city that is actually quite safe and is actually quite beautiful.

Um don't know to what extent it detour deters tourism, or to what extent it um uh engenders uh the belief in other cities that uh the district is a dangerous place.

Uh I see National Guard walking our streets and they're just walking.

I don't know really what they're doing.

And um so I think the fact that they were um manning the gates for the state fair on the mall was helpful, but that's not the same as walking our streets, or when they were shoveling uh snow at DuPont Circle during Snow Creek, that was a good thing.

We don't really need the National Guard for that.

There's no.

Um so I guess just building off of that, um, of course you have recess, you have a new council period coming up with uh with a significantly different council and uh new mayor, you know.

Just wanted to get thoughts, you know, coming up on your reelection and your your likely re-election.

Um, what's your vision as far as just again having that that united front on the council and collaborating with the other two branches to take it up a notch as far as rebuffing federal interference?

What is your strategy?

What have you been exploring as council chair?

Uh well, as you know, we've become much more active.

My office has become much more active with um working with members of Congress and developing relationships there, and uh at the same time um working with colleagues to ensure that they're informed and um from time to time uh participating in efforts to inform members of Congress.

Uh so I can I intend to continue to um develop and increase those efforts.

Um, and that includes, of course, uh ensuring that members are together informed and together um, particularly when there's a uh a specific issue that we have to push back on.

Uh going off of the National Guard discussion.

Um we now have Minnesota pulling out of uh troops from DC.

Uh is that something I don't know if they contacted you guys?

Is that something you had heard about?

And are you aware that at least as the joint task force is concerned, those who had signed up to help during the 250th are slated to be here through August to help with the summer events?

I'm not sure what the question is.

Uh they did not um I was not informed of Minnesota pulling out.

I heard that through the news.

Um, and I think that's just fine.

Um, I get that the um Guard has been useful to the federal government with regard to the federal activities that are on the federal mall.

Um it certainly takes some burden off of MPD to provide uh support for those federal events, which means that there are more MPD officers who are available for other local law enforcement.

Um my sense of it, but again, this is from news reports is that some of the governors realized that the um presence of the National Guard with regard to the state fair was not as um necessary as they had originally thought.

Okay.

Uh and as it relates to to crime as a whole, unfortunately, there was a 13-year-old that was killed over the weekend.

Uh what do you think can and should be done to really help prevent this violence from happening in the first place?

Well, I think there are a lot of strategies that um the district government can and should be following to reduce um violence.

Um some of that has been discussed in the past, like uh um focused deterrence, um, with regard to uh juveniles.

Um it's it's not uncommon that juveniles that get caught up in violence have been involved with uh the juvenile justice system before, and the juvenile justice system is not is is weak when it comes to um planning, um I'll say planning correctional activities for those kids so that they're less likely to reoffend.

Uh this has been a struggle with DYRS, uh, but it's broader than DYRS.

Uh DYRS just has those who've been um committed to it by the courts.

There are a lot of other juveniles who are in the juvenile justice system who haven't gotten to that point.

But I know that we put through legislation a couple years ago to require that the UIRS have a um a treatment plan for any juveniles before they come into DYRS.

There is the ability to do that because the process is such in the courts that DYRS knows before the juvenile is committed to it, and yet uh DYRS pushed back on this notion that they would have a treatment plan for the juvenile before the juveniles committed to them.

We actually see this.

I actually see this across the government, not just in the context of juvenile justice, but uh for example, with those who are struggling with uh rent and go into emergency rental assistance program or rather the um rapid rehousing program, there's just a lack of planning.

And so people go into these programs, DYRS, uh rapid rehousing, there's no exit plan, if you will.

And so when time is up, the doors open and they're just pushed outside.

If we want to reduce some of this juvenile violence, um we need to do be much more focused on uh treatment and uh planning for treatment.

Uh I mentioned focused deterrence, which has been a proven strategy in other cities that's uh dealing with adults or young adults.

Um I mean I've I have said this before that if our homicide rate was the same as uh New York Cities, we would probably have like 40 homicides a year.

Now we're doing very well, right?

Uh like uh last year was down significantly from the year before, and this year is down from last year, but we could be doing better.

To clarify off of that, you had mentioned that it's not uncommon that juveniles um who get caught up in violence have been involved with the justice system before.

Do you know if that was the case for this incident from over the week?

I do not know.

Okay, thank you.

Um two questions here.

Um, one today there's a hearing um happening at 1 p.m.

Uh slate of bills related to um redevelopment of parcels at St.

Elizabeth's are being heard.

Um these all these pieces of legislation have been flowing around for over a year.

Um I'm wondering if you think that they will be taken up for a vote sometime soon here, maybe when the council gets back from recess, or if there's still a ways away.

I would hope they get taken up uh early in the fall, uh unless there is a reason that the council does not want to move the legislation.

I think um uh when the council gets these these legislative measures, the council should move as quickly as possible.

Uh we should have a public hearing to a ascertain whether there is public uh opposition to the proposal, and then B to ascertain whether there's some flaws in the legislation or something else that ought to be changed to facilitate the development.

Um council should do that quickly, move these the bills quickly so that the council is not uh cannot be pointed to as part of the delay in the process.

Economic development takes too long in this city, and uh uh of course we have more control over ourselves and other people and so ourselves, the council should move as quickly as it can.

So I would hope that the uh hearings today enable the staff over recess, did I mention recesses actually working time?

Staff will be working and uh that the staff can get the bills ready for voting in the fall.

Okay.

Um and then last week, um, your stand-in staffer was the only vote to oppose advancing the president's arch.

Um I'm curious what you make of the administration's argument that federal buildings should not be um subject to the height act moving forward.

I so want to say what I should not say.

Um, that's what I say.

Anything to repeat that.

Um the um there's no question in my mind that the uh the federal height of buildings act applies to uh federal buildings.

No question about that in my mind.

Uh I've looked at the legislative history, I've read the opinions uh by both uh NCPC General Counsel and by the Department of Interior General Counsel.

I think the Department of Interior General Counsel did what we sometimes see agency directors do, which is you know the conclusion and you write the opinion to justify the conclusion.

It's weak.

Um, the um, I mean, if you want me to go into it, the 1899 statute exempted federal buildings, the draft of the 1910 Act, um, uh explicitly repealed uh the 1899 act, um, and then um that was replaced with language that was broader, but of the same effect, that said that any law that's inconsistent with this is um uh ineffective.

So they covered it.

Uh they absolutely covered the issue that um the um the uh the um uh federal government is is trying to hang its hat on.

I mean it's kind of the same, what do I want to how do I want to put this?

Um I think what they're trying to contend or pretend with the Height Act is just a variation of what they're trying to contend or pretend that the arch is similar to the project that was approved in 1925 with two columns.

Really?

Nobody can look at two columns and say that looks like an arch or a 257 foot tall arch.

Um so I'm did I answer your question?

I think so.

No, go on.

Yeah, but I mean if you have more to say, we're we're all ears.

Yeah, I know I kind of ran out of energy there.

Yes, Mr.

Rice.

Going back.

Well, for first of all, did you go to the state fair and what was your impression?

No, but I do want to say that I'm uh pleased that the federal government recognized that the District of Columbia is a state by having a state fair here.

Secondly, going back to your discussion of the Supreme Court and property sales and so forth, related to another Supreme Court decision in Chevron, in which the court ruled that uh the court should consider directly, if I understand it correctly, uh the review agency actions and not continue to defer to the expertise of the agency.

And the council has acted on that.

Can you just talk about that, please?

Uh so I think the way I'll explain it is this.

Um, as with across the country and every state, there are two sets of laws.

There are federal laws and then there are local laws.

And uh the Supreme Court ruled in Chevron with regard to federal laws or federal courts, that federal courts uh should not defer to the expertise of the agency or rely um heavily on the expertise of the agency.

I think it's a flawed decision, but that's beside the point.

Um the uh district, just by nature of our history, is um very much in parallel with the federal federal government, federal law, and so uh we uh adopted legislation to make clear that for the district, for local law, that relying on agency expertise is appropriate.

Now, what does all this mean?

So an agency is I I totally get that agency can get something wrong.

And I also get the argument that an agency is comprised of unelected people, why do they get to make decisions instead of elected people?

That latter is a little bit uh uh faulty because the effect of Chevron is that instead of an unelected agency uh being relied on, now you have an unelected judge who um doesn't even have expertise in the field who gets to make the decision.

Um it's also flawed in the sense that um there has to be some reliance there has to be some sense of stability in our law.

And uh so whatever the however an agency has been interpreting a law, unless it's clearly unreasonable or erroneous, uh that uh we should follow that precedent.

And if government or the people don't like it, then the legislature can change the law to correct an agency's interpretation.

Um there's a healthy, there's been a healthy tension for decades.

I mean, the uh the precedent that Chevron struck down was dates back to the New Deal.

So we're talking about 80 years, maybe, and uh there's been a healthy tension over those 80 years.

Uh sometimes agencies get it wrong, but let's consider what an agency is doing, and there's a fair amount of stability in the law, or an administrative procedure.

And with Chevron, the um outcome is that uh you get a new shot, a second shot at the second bite at the apple by going to court.

Maybe you'll get a judge who doesn't really understand some of these very uh arcane issues, like uh with um, I'm gonna say like nuclear science or and um uh that's problematic.

So we, at any event, uh in local law adopted legislation a year ago that says that uh for purposes of local law that uh courts should continue to look at agency expertise, and what about not following the Supreme Court precedent at the local level?

Uh this the Supreme Court is not binding on local law.

Supreme Court is binding on constitutional interpretation and on federal law.

Uh, I have time for like one or two more questions, Sam.

I wanted to go back in time and ask a clarifying question.

Of course, the BSA was approved last week, but I was asking this question in regards to the uh Homeland Security Commission Dissolution Act.

Um whatever came out of that provision, specifically ones concerning the destruction of all records from the commission, a lifetime gag order on current and former commissioners, and um an expansion of the FOIA exemption to cover all records of the commission.

Were those stricken from that provision?

Uh, to be honest with you, I don't know.

I try to know a lot of things, but I don't know that one.

Oh, it's too specific.

Uh I'm just aware of some disappointment that the um that commission was dissolved.

But the mayor had not been making appointments to it for years.

Uh the intent behind it was to uh draw on the expertise that's in the city, given that there are so many um national experts.

Um, but that just never materialized, so that's why it got repealed.

Uh any thoughts you have in regards to the commission.

Um, just those the dissolution aside, just with the exemption for FOIA request, I didn't I I have no idea.

But you didn't receive a letter from um there's a coalition that deals with um well, it's called the open government coalition.

They sent a letter to the council last month about those provisions.

Okay, I did not see the letter.

You didn't see the letter.

I did not see the letter.

So any thoughts, you know, as it relates to just keeping records away, destroying records, because it seems like you know, DC government as an entity is going down this road of becoming less and less transparent.

You know, that's yeah, I think uh you're that's a bit of a stretch.

Um, how so?

Because I think that uh the issue here is specifically the Homeland Security Commission and records related to related to Homeland Security, and I don't think you can correlate that to the government is going down this path of becoming less transparent.

I'm only saying that in the context of the open meetings act, you know, just terminal.

But I think they're just two very different actions.

So I do not know what the effect of the repeal is on the FOIA provisions you refer to, the records retention provision that you refer to.

I don't know.

So just more generally as it relates to, well, what would what would be the utility of keeping those records away?

You know, what what would be the keeping them what to keeping those records from getting access?

What's the utility in that?

Um I think you know I it's difficult for me to answer the question uh the question hypothetically.

Um if the homeland security records have to deal with security threats to the city, uh then there would be a value to keeping those um not having them open to the public for a period of time.

But I think you're also asking whether the records are getting destroyed.

Uh, you're pressing me on an issue that I am not familiar with.

Oh, that's kind of surprising to me, seeing that the the BSA went through last week.

So you received you y you have no recollection of a letter from uh I did not see a letter.

I it's not that I have no recollection.

I did not see a letter from the open government coalition with regard to the subtitle.

Okay.

That's all I get.

I'm out of time.

I will see you guys uh if you want.

We have a breakfast in the morning and uh committee the hall and then the legislative meeting.

Thank you.