Black Republican for Mayor?!

Dennis Moore has a slogan for his mayoral campaign: "Mayor for a New Washington."

In Moore's mind, that's a Washington where a Republican can be elected mayor.

"I do not see myself as some underdog just because the city is predominantly Democratic," said Moore, a Ward 5 resident who is running as a Republican. "That's negligible. It's about the message, and about the people." Then Moore paraphrased famed Democratic presidential campaign strategist James Carville: "It's the people, Stupid."

Mayoral Candidate Dennis Moore Photo.jpg In his more clear-headed moments, Moore, 53, acknowledges he faces an uphill climb and that he's something of an anomaly as an African-American Republican.

"My family are traditional Republicans," said Moore, who has lived in Savannah, Ga., Harlem and D.C. "We come out of the Frederick Douglass, Eisenhower, Martin Luther King Jr. line."

Moore is one of four people who have said they are seeking the Republican nomination and are trying to find 300 registered Republicans to sign their nominating petitions. The others are James Caviness, a cab driver; Gilbert Hahn Jr., a former appointed member of the D.C. Council; and David W. Kranich, a member of the D.C. republican committee.

"Obviously, we are the minority party, but we still believe strongly in a two-party system," said Jamila Atkinson, executive director of the D.C. GOP. "You have to run people to win."

But not everyone is listening.

The GOP candidates have difficulty getting invited to speak at mayoral debates, which usually feature the five leading Democratic candidates. At a forum sponsored by the D.C. Alliance for Youth Advocacy, Moore showed up but was relegated to a seat in the crowd of mostly teens, even though Democratic front-runners Adrian M. Fenty and Linda W. Cropp failed to appear.

Moore gets a bit preturbed about this, but he soldiers on, touting his fliers and his web site. His wife, Miriam, is running as an Independent for the Ward 5 D.C. Council seat. Dennis Moore has a 10-point action plan to improve the city and he rails against major projects such as the new baseball stadium and the convention center, which he says take away funding and focus from social problems that plague the city.

"These are nothing more than bureaucratic boondoggles that have no immediate or long-term socioeconomic benefits for D.C. residents," Moore said. "These have nothing to do with affordable housing, first-class schools and effective health care. They are just pet special interest projects, away of distracting people from real needs."

In that vein, Moore sounds like Fenty, who also railed against the baseball stadium. In fact, all the Democratic candidates are pushing the need to improve social services.

"At first, frankly, some people hear my message and ask, 'Are you sure you're a Republican?'" Moore said. "Of course, because these are real Republican values. If you're talking neo-Republicans and neo-conservatism, that's a whole different brand. I'm an old school traditional Republican and an Eisenhower baby."

Moore said he is a self-employed Internet publisher, who specializes in making Web sites, news and public affairs. He said he worked briefly for the District government, first in the public school's Office of Parent Affairs from 1998 to 1999, then for a few months in the Office of the Chief Financial Officer.

He recently attended the Republican National Committee's minority candidate school in Virginia for a weekend. Although he concedes that he will have far less money and fewer volunteers that the major Democratic candidates, Moore remains unbowed.

"People aren't stupid," he said. "District voters are avid and aware when candidates speak to the issues and those priorities that resonate with them. It's not about how many posters or commercials you have. It's about talking to everyday residents who care about your message and what you will do with that message."


By David Nakamura |  June 5, 2006; 7:00 AM ET
Previous: Straw Poll In Ward 6 | Next: A Stadium Rises

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



More capital R's on "Republican," please!

Posted by: Tom | June 5, 2006 08:30 AM

Well, if you're voting for Bolden I guess you'd be comfortable voting for a Republican!

I think we should stay away from folks who will just represent the developers, big business, outside interests, etc.

Posted by: DC Chick | June 5, 2006 09:55 AM

Beat me to it DC Chick!

Yep, profilgate spending on dubious self-aggrandizing junk, and being in the hip pocket of moneyed interests. Bolden qualifies.

Posted by: Heh... | June 5, 2006 10:04 AM

Well, you stick with the P.M. guy and talk your trash. The rest of D.C. knows a winner and is going with Bolden. Cry if you wanna.

It will be good to have another moderate on the Council who is able to work with all people and all parties and understand all communities and people from all walks of life. I think there was a Republican and is still one on the Council that is quite popular. They all aren't bad and sometimes Republicans have a good thought now and then. How about some of you detractors?

Posted by: | June 5, 2006 10:25 AM

It's good that the P.M. guy, at large incumbent, is going to have a hearing regarding the two inmates that escaped from jail. Normally it tends to take a year to get that guy into the saddle and going. A lot of negative things are happening on P.M. incumbent's watch. He sure needs Kathy Patterson to guide him on the Judiciary Committee. He takes at least a year to have a hearing on the Crime Bill. He waited forever on the EMS hearing. And now there are escaped convicts on his watch. Is this guy bad luck or what? Why aren't there bars on the windows at the jail? Even residential homes have bars on them at some homes.

The incumbent Judiciary Chair needs to learn the meaning of oversight. It's part of the job, or is that too Republican for you, Mr. P.M. detractor.

Posted by: | June 5, 2006 10:34 AM

Great, Scotty boy's new slogan..."Elect me! I'm kind of like a Republican!"

Keep it up kids, you can't pay for this kind of comedy. Maybe you should bus in some DC Wire posters to help out?

Posted by: Heh... | June 5, 2006 11:20 AM

We're doing just find. We have you jumping at each of our comments. Try to keep up. It only gets better. Bolden is in and the P.M. guy is out. Don't you just love it. And by the way, the only boy around is you and the P.M. guy.

And when you use the word kids, I assume your mother allowed you to talk to grown ups.

When you're ready to talk issues, we're ready. Tell the P.M. guy to ask Councilmember Patterson how he should run his committee. I wish she had written a manual for him so that we could get something done.

Let's hope that the Judiciary hearing will be fruitful and that no one needs EMS or escapes from jail in the meantime. Hope there wasn't anything in the crime bill that could have helped the city along in this crises of crime. Maybe if we put it on a menu as an ingredient it might have been read by P.M. a lot quicker.

And remember, Republicans are people too. Bolden will represent all D.C. residents. We don't pick and choose like the P.M. guy.

No time to play. We've got an election to win. You may continue to play, Simon says you can respond now.

Posted by: | June 5, 2006 11:34 AM

Ward 3 Resident simply makes stuff up.

Posted by: Voter | June 5, 2006 12:03 PM

Aside from some typos and broken quotes, I can affirm David Nakamura's well done DC Wire report. But, for DC voters who want the full flavor and context of my priorities and policies for "A New Washington," please read the details on my website at www.MooreForPeople.com.

Moreover, older Washingtonians who remember, and the younger generations of diverse clear thinking District residents will understand. There is a genuine difference between real Republican principles versus cardboard Republicans and Democratic shysters -- as well as public servants who serve people, versus public officials who serve themselves.

To revise a famous fiscally responsible president's quote, "It's the PEOPLE, Stupid!" -- and despite the ongoing disrespect, politics and politricks of how our public officials have governed for the last 12 years, DC does not mean Dumb Citizens.

Vote for real change, and you get it. Vote for the usual suspects, and you get the usual results. But, DON'T forget to vote!

Dennis Moore - Mayor For A New Washington
mooreforpeople@gmail.com -- 202.441.8528

Posted by: Dennis Moore | June 5, 2006 12:43 PM

I would only vote republican if Mr. Moore, would fight to get the gun ban lifted.

Posted by: NE DC | June 5, 2006 01:19 PM

I have checked out Dennis Moore's website and I think he has the best plan out of all of the mayoral candidates to fix what's wrong with this city, and I am not a Republican. Rather than dismiss someone because of our perception of his party, let's put this guy to the test and see how if he's really got what it takes to fix this city. And besides, the problems we have in this city occurred under Democratic leadership. We should really ask ourselves how well our one party favoritism has actually served us.

Posted by: cc | June 5, 2006 01:37 PM

cc's comment is probably the only sane thing written on this page (not counting the candidate's message).

The rest of us living in the actual states would love to see a non-partisan climate in DC, where message and merit carry some weight, not just partisan bickering and blind loyalty to party.

You people live in DC. Set a political example for the rest of the country.

Posted by: Shocking | June 5, 2006 03:01 PM

We'll get right on in our upcoming Representative and Senatorial election...uh...er...

Tell ya what, we'll happily set an example when we actually have a vote.

Posted by: Sure shocking... | June 5, 2006 03:05 PM

Sorry "NE DC" -- Being ex-military, a clear thinking person, and an eyewitness to the actual horrors of random urban gun violence here and across the globe, I am acutely aware of the purpose and problems of personal gun ownership. Lifting or diluting the gun ban will not be a policy I will ever support.

Simply, guns are for killing people, and the violent gene in human nature leads to people using guns to kill people. This simple point becomes absolutely clear if (God forbid) you or someone dear to you becomes a victim of random (or premeditated) gun violence.

In an urban capital city-state, only police and licensed security personnel should carry guns while we aggressively prevent, catch, prosecute and swiftly punish those who use guns (and other weapons) to threaten, rob, rape, hurt or kill the rest of us.

Nevertheless, I hope you can broaden your perspective and sensitivity to consider the greater good for you, your family and the general public safety of all District of Columbia citizens. If I get your support and vote in that process, then we are both winners.

Dennis Moore
Mayor For A New Washington
www.MooreForPeople.com
mooreforpeople@gmail.com

Posted by: Dennis Moore | June 5, 2006 03:27 PM

Sure shocking, do what you'd tell your kids to do.

Affect change with the resources that you have -- make an effort to improve your collective situation -- then people might take you seriously enough to help you make the 'taxation without representation' case.

Elect Cropp to office and you get no sympathy. Keep electing Barry to office and you get laughed at.

Posted by: Shocking | June 5, 2006 03:31 PM

To shocking and sure shocking: While our lack of representation is deplorable, we still have children to educate and taxpayer resources to manage. The cast of characters we have running things now, of which two are so called "front runner" mayoral candidates, have done a poor job in these two areas, and quite a few others. And they brought us no closer obtaining representation. We can of break our cycle of stagnation by going outside of our comfort zone and consider a candidate who seems ready to handle our business. In the process, we can set also set an example. Judging from his sound response to NE DC, Mr. Moore seems to have his priorities in the right place.

Posted by: cc | June 5, 2006 05:18 PM

"Sure shocking" came closest to the truth. Those of us who were born or have lived in DC or the Metro area for decades and remember all of the past mayors and mayorial elections know that it doesn't really matter who is mayor, whose on the council, or the school board, if for any reason they don't like you on the Hill, nothing will get done until you're gone. Fortunately for Williams, there were many who welcomed him after years of Barry (who was despised by the Hill), and the short ineffective reign of Sharon Pratt Dixon (who was ignored by the Hill). Williams was thought to be "maleable" and thus acceptable by voters who would never vote for Barry, and by the controllers on the Hill. Make no mistake, that's why he won. If you think I exaggerate, just see what happens the next time someone on the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia decides he wants to try out one of his pet projects in the District (vouchers, gun control, the death penalty, school reform, etc.). Though in many cases these lone reformers may not get what they want (though they always come close because they have more power than the DC mayor, the council or the citizens of DC), the pattern is to punish the District by severely tightening the purse strings so that DC is still effectively controlled from the Hill. In other words, it doesn't matter who the Mayor of D.C. is, or whose on the various councils, they will only be as effective as the powers that be want them to be. The citizens can go on and on here, candidates can make all the promises they want, and you can have as many elections as you want, the city will be run by the people who control the budget and the agenda, until D.C. gets home rule.

Posted by: vd | June 6, 2006 10:27 AM

Why would anyone vote for any representative to manage the affairs of dc residents when that particular candidate can't manage there own affairs or finances (e.g. Michael Brown, Scott Bolden, Adrian Fenty)?

Posted by: Subjective Politics | June 6, 2006 12:57 PM

I am the National Committeeman of the D.C. Young Republicans (DCYR), a 100-member organization.

Dennis may want to re-think his gun ban stance. On March 13, DCYR passed nearly unanimously a resolution asking that the City Council hold hearings to consider repealing the gun ban and permitting law abiding citizens, after training and a background check, to carry handguns for self protection. The only vote against the resolution was by a person who thought the resolution was too weak. The resolution also stated that the Council should immediately repeal the ban on the use of firearms within the home for the purpose of self-defense.

Two years ago, the House of Representatives voted to repeal all D.C. gun control laws. Voting for the bill were 198 Republicans and 52 Democrats. Only 22 Republicans voted against the measure.

I live in a D.C. neighborhood with a lot of violent crime and the bullets are flying. D.C. gun control has had 30 years to work, and it is a massive failure. Why should law abiding citizens be subject to assaults on the street and in their homes without the means to protect themselves?

I have spoken with Dennis on a couple of occasions and found him to be a very likeable person and a strong candidate. We need more quality Republican candidates like Dennis.

So I am very disappointed that he has taken a stance so out of step with many of his fellow Republicans. I "hope [he] can broaden [his] perspective and sensitivity to consider" what many "clear thinking" Republicans who have been studying this issue for years believe.

Posted by: Kris Hammond | June 6, 2006 01:27 PM

Good Day Kris and "vd"

Kris - It is most important that District voters, ALL District voters, distinguish between interests and candidates who only have self-interests versus the common interests of the majority of diverse residents who want and deserve genuine public safety. If you are old enough to remember DC in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, as I am, personal gun ownership was no guarantee of personal safety. If you've every had military weapons experience, or living in complex urban environments like New York, Atlanta, Los Angeles or DC, and actually witnessed an open gunshot wound (all as I have) -- and the screams of a parent or family members -- because their loved one was an accidental or random victim of a gun "owner," you might be more realistic about personal gun ownership in a stressful urban environment.

DC is not like the hinterlands of Maryland, Virginia, Colorado or Texas. It is an urban capital with far more socioeconomic complexities and stresses. We need not make it more complex or stressful by allowing personal gun ownership by people in different or unpredictable states of emotional stability. No doubt, I am tired like most people of hearing the cliché statement, "He was such a nice quiet neighbor!" or "I never could imagined her doing that!" until they shot family, friends, co-workers, or an inquiring police officer.

As I clearly stated in this blog, above, "In an urban capital city-state, only police and licensed security personnel should carry guns while we aggressively prevent, catch, prosecute and swiftly punish those who use guns (and other weapons) to threaten, rob, rape, hurt or kill the rest of us.

I truly respect and appreciate that you see me as "a very likeable person and a strong candidate." But, I would not serve the genuine best interests of you and the diverse thousands of other District residents by weak leadership, being weak on public safety, and dysfunctional about the greater good and future of our city-state.

"VD" - Unfortunately, much of what you say is relatively true. Yet, in fact, many of the District's political empowerment wounds are self-inflicted by incompetent, arrogant and corrupt governance by the same local officials who expect respect from Capitol Hill representatives and overseers. No, doubt many of the folks on the Hill over the decades have not been icons integrity and good governance either. But, when we have local public officials who go to the Hill and can't represent us from a position of genuine administrative accountability, fiscal integrity and political strength, no wonder we become comic relief for condescending Capitol officials -- both Democrat and Republican.

Nevertheless, we have a responsibility to ourselves, and our own integrity and self-respect, to provide all District of Columbia citizens with a competent, consistently functional, fail-safe, resident-friendly and corruption-free local government run by public servants who complement this standard. We have little moral high ground or political integrity when we go to Capitol Hill heavily tainted with national headlines of a deteriorated public school system near the bottom 50 of US states, the highest and fastest HIV/AIDS infection rate in America, the highest US per capita homeless population, still one of America's most proportionately dangerous cities for random violent crime, an exceptionally high unemployment rate among its indigenous residents, among the top US cities for unaffordable housing, one of the fastest per capita rates of resident relocation out of an urban capital city, and the list goes on. All of this while our elected public officials make efforts to massage the media and voters with happy-talk, hype, politricks, zigzag rhetoric, election year money tossing, and media spin about how great things are and the alleged socioeconomic progress being made.

When we pull back and look clearly at the bigger picture, we see many of the same faces who have been perpetrators, partners and silent backers of a mass scam against DC voters across diverse socioeconomic groups. Beyond our diverse ethnicities or political affiliations -- whether we work hard to earn $10,000 or $100,000 to live in Anacostia or Georgetown -- abusive DC taxation, dysfunctional governance, arrogant unaccountability, and the looming threat of random danger in or near our neighborhoods have affected us all. Why have we accepted a standard of just trying to survive, rather than the climate of success in the District?

It really does matter who the next District of Columbia mayor will be. Being cynical about DC staying the same and never changing plays right into the hands of those in the District who really don't want change. A divided and discontented city is a conquered one for those who want to maintain control. As it's been said in many other instances, and no doubt it is true, to keep doing the same thing (electing and promoting the same people) and expecting a different result is a sure form of insanity. I don't think that DC voters, and former residents, are insane -- we are just deeply discontented, disgusted, and have generally become used to a condition of low expectation from the people we elect and pay to govern our city-state.

Most of all, despite how our local officials treat us, DC is not an abbreviation for Dumb Citizens.

While our public officials, and the usual candidates, have distracted us with the predictable election year promises, their dubious list of "accomplishments," and the tease of statehood and "Taxation Without Representation" type slogans, they never seem to address the shaky quality of District living best described as taxation without EXPECTATION. In fact, ask any one of them what the WILL do to effectively empower all District residents and government operations for statehood. Ask them if they even have a PLAN. Their answer will clearly indicate what your next four to eight years of living in DC are going to be like.

The question in this election year and beyond, as it was in previous years, is how much does it have to hurt and how many of us are forced to leave, before enough voters become conscious and conscientious about electing public servants who ACTUALLY serve people. The answer may be found on their websites. What they are ACTUALLY campaigning to be, when you listen beyond the hype, can be found among the slogans that end with "For Mayor" as compared to "For People."

Dennis Moore
Mayor For A New Washington
www.MooreForPeople.com
mooreforpeople@gmail.com

Posted by: Dennis Moore | June 6, 2006 02:52 PM

Greetings "Two Face" -- With all due respect, read my responses and website (www.MooreForPeople.com), carefully, slowly, and thoughtfully. Then read any one or all of these books:

Anything written by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
A Republican!

Thaddeus Stevens: Nineteenth Century Egalitarian
By Hans L. Trefousse - ISBN: 080782335X

Grand Old Party: A History of the Republicans
By Lewis L. Gould - ISBN: 0375507418

Back to Basics for the Republican Party
By Michael Zak - ISBN: 0970006314

Agenda for America: A Republican Direction for the Future
By Haley Barbour - ISBN: 0895267217

It's My Party Too: The Battle for the Heart of the GOP and
the Future of America
By Christine Todd Whitman - ISBN 1594200408

Who's In Control? Polar Politics and the Sensible Center
By Richard Darman - ISBN: 0684811235

Crunchy Cons
By Rod Dreher - ISBN: 1400050642

Getting America Right: The True Conservative Values
Our Nation Needs Today
By Edwin J. Feulner and Doug Wilson - ISBN: 0307336913

At Ease: Stories I Tell to Friends
By Dwight D. Eisenhower - Library of Congress: 67-13781

The Eisenhower Administration and Black Civil Rights
By Robert Frederick Burke - ISBN: 0870494937

- - - - - -

Greetings "Native" -- I thank you, most wholeheartedly for your insight, encouragement and support. Moreover, thanks for crystallizing the genuine discontent I hear at least 20 times a day from voters who are also tired of being 'punked' and 'bamboozled' by the "usual suspects" -- and predictable pretentious political pontificators playing politricks preceding Election Day.

Dennis Moore
Mayor For A New Washington
www.MooreForPeople.com
mooreforpeople@gmail.com

Posted by: Dennis Moore | June 6, 2006 11:11 PM

"Pretentious, political pontificators." Say that 10 times really fast. Or, you could say the same thing in just two words: "current Mayor." I, for one, will no longer stand for being "punked." How about the rest of you? The Republican party, at its core, means fiscal conservatism. It's our money. Our town. Our time. Rock on, Mr. Moore.

Posted by: Native | June 7, 2006 12:16 AM

Unfortunately, I can't see Mr. Moore's Republican moniker as anything other than a gimmick. Attaching himself to some Eisenhower Republican "legacy" doesn't stand up to the light of history. Eisenhower, known more for his WWII heroics and foreign policy than his domestic political and social agenda, regretted his decision to nominate Justice Earl Warren, who favored Brown v. Board Ed., and endorsed the '68 Goldwater ticket, also supported notably by Strom Thurman. Thurman, you'll remember, changed his Democratic Party affiliations to Republican in 1964 in defiance of the non-dixiecrat, Democratic Party's leaning toward civil rights legislation for blacks. So the bastard changed his liver spots in the 80's: hired a couple of African American staffers while continuing to oppose The Voting Rights Act and keeping silent about the black child he sired more than fifty years prior. Still before 1968 almost all blacks given the right to vote would've said they were Republicans. Had MLK had the opportunity to vote '68, I'd bet dollars to donuts that he WOULDN'T have voted for Nixon. So Moore's "old-school. . .we come out of the Frederick Douglass, Eisenhower, Martin Luther King Jr. line" republicanism doesn't go any farther than your garden variety Republican representing the "party of Lincoln" or, better (or worse) yet, the party that Nixon built. To his credit, Moore does appear to have a good grasp of issue facing the District. But then so does Adrian Fenty. . . :-)

Posted by: Black Voting Democrat Under 35 | June 7, 2006 04:39 AM

Good Day "Black Voting Democrat Under 35" --

Perhaps you missed or misunderstood the context of my statement. I was born, in 1953, during the Eisenhower administration. My parents, and grandparents voted for President Eisenhower because they had the firsthand-eyewitness experience of him being the first US president to take a high profile, and behind the scenes, stand on Black civil rights. Historically, he is the first modern day president to be a political catalyst for every other president that followed regarding an open federal response to Black equality and empowerment.

Perhaps, his efforts may be related to his Black ancestry and his mother (read At Ease: Stories I Tell to Friends, by Dwight D. Eisenhower - Library of Congress: 67-13781). But, that history is for another blog. Nevertheless, I also believe it was more about original/traditional real Republican principles (Thaddeus Stevens: Nineteenth Century Egalitarian, by Hans L. Trefousse - ISBN: 080782335X).

Do the homework regarding his efforts to control and disempower the "Dixiecrats" (southern Democrats) who had a stranglehold on Black progress from Florida to Maryland and DC in particular (Jim Crow - Black Code race laws). I'm old enough to have experienced that firsthand.

Two of Eisenhower's several civil rights highlights that come to mind is his executive order to send federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, to protect Black high school students, as well as his actions to desegregate the District of Columbia and initiate home rule in a Black majority city. Personally, my father revered Eisenhower for the opportunity afforded him as a Korean War combat soldier of equal standing and ranking in the first wave of ethnically integrated military commands.

As I indicated in this blog above, you might want to do some reading and referencing before reacting. On this particular subject, I strongly suggest you read: The Eisenhower Administration and Black Civil Rights, by Robert Fredrick Burk (ISBN: 0870494937).

Most respectfully BVDU35, knowing where you really come from strengthens where you are, and empowers where you want to go. On a lighter note, Would it give you to much pain to know that my political and social legacy -- along with Douglass, Eisenhower, Dr. King and many others in between -- also includes many modern day Black cultural icons from Denzel Washington to LL Cool J? Both Republicans.

Never forget, at one time Blacks were once killed or mutilated for seeking knowledge. Expand your knowledge, or at least visit www.NBRA.org and http://BookerRising.Blogspot.com.

Dennis Moore
Mayor For A New Washington
www.MooreForPeople.com
mooreforpeople@gmail.com

Posted by: Dennis Moore | June 7, 2006 09:53 AM

For the benefit of bloggers who prefer to redefine or compare me to other DC mayoral candidates -- regarding various issues and ills that burden DC residents -- there is a big difference between complaining about something and having an actual plan to DO something about it. For example:

Strike Three: DC's Office of Baseball
By Republican DC Mayoral Candidate Dennis Moore

So, now our money will be used for a baseball agency. As a fiscally accountable traditional Republican, I have great concerns, about this new chapter in the taxpayer funded nickel-and-dime deal -- disguised as a revenue generating DC baseball stadium. Is this yet another example of our public officials spending the rent money to buy more lottery tickets?

First, the logic of creating the "Office of Baseball" or de facto DC Baseball Commission is pretentious and costly even at $750,000. How many new up-to-date textbooks or classroom computers will that buy for DC students? How many homeless families can be provided permanent housing, rather than warehousing? How much random violence and crime will not be eliminated? Under which shell in the truly unaccountable District budget shell game did this "magic money" come from?

Thinking that another level of bureaucracy will stabilize and validate a bad deal is like putting a crown and gown on a gorilla, then calling it a beauty queen. Moreover, beyond the flood of Washington Nationals baseball caps, what happened to that "spending cap?"

No doubt, I like baseball -- though less so compared to DC basketball, soccer, hockey and live entertainment. But, the deeper truth behind the Washington Nationals baseball stadium project is that it's a nickel-and-dime deal hyped as multimillion-dollar baby.

Having questioned some of the principals at the rarely held public meetings, I am thoroughly convinced that their best financial projections will reap only minimal and seasonal revenue for the District of Columbia. Filtering through the zigzag answers to my direct questions about the stadium's long-term financial benefit, versus the actual cost to DC taxpayers, they admitted their projected benefits are at best "a gamble." Even most risk-taking Wall Street bankers have long ago run away from this type of shaky cost/benefit formula being hyped in this DC stadium deal. Do local public officials think that DC stands for Dumb Citizens? In a related boondoggle, the inside story is the International Olympic Committee took pity, and would not let District public officials 'pun k' us on the world stage.

Gambling with other people's money -- DC's hard-earned taxpayer revenue -- is not my idea of genuine fiscal responsibility and true accountability for public priorities. My idea of building an Ellington Center on the same footprint of the stadium is designed to produce exponential economic and social benefits. Ellington Center will be a dynamic year-round entertainment, arts, technology and retail shopping megaplex containing an indoor multimedia family amusement park, a multi-use sports arena, 2 live performance auditoriums, the Capital Life & History Museum, 21st century public library, a hotel, 20 video and film theaters, 3 floors of stores, office space, an onsite medical facility, childcare services, DC police security center, customer service training school, easy Metro bus and train access, as well as multilevel underground parking.

My best financially conservative economic projection reveals that Ellington Center will generate at least 2,000 full time sales, administrative, service and professional support jobs for District residents, and a minimum of $250 million dollars in annual revenue -- all in the same stadium construction space. Yet, it can be built for less than $350 million of the nearly $700 million dollars that taxpayers will be billed for the Washington Nationals stadium. Much of that $350 million for construction will be funded by the major entertainment, amusement and retail companies that will jump at the opportunity to have a high profile presence in "The Nation's Capital." The multiple sources of real revenue generated out of sales, property, business and employment taxes from Ellington Center will have an immediate and long-term economic impact on greater funding for genuine public priorities -- priorities like first class schools, truly affordable housing, effective healthcare services, public safety, including a major reduction in resident and business taxation pressures.

This exponential economic benefit is increased when you include the millions more in tourist dollars, as Ellington Center becomes a priority attraction for millions of year-round visitors to the District. Again, I'm talking about year-round long-term socioeconomic benefit, not the seasonal speculative gamble that the stadium deal will gain for Major League Baseball owners -- and the future fortunes of the public officials who backed their deal.

Ellington Center, named in honor of DC's favorite son and America's national treasure Edward Kennedy 'Duke' Ellington, will have the desired economic benefit that diverse District of Columbia residents know is needed for our many people-oriented priorities. Innovative, fiscally responsible projects create more District jobs and multiple sources of real revenue. Long-term year-round revenue generating projects reduce the growing tax burden on residents and businesses. Moreover, it sustains reliable and effective funding for real public priorities. It also maintains a high bond rating and value for DC. Only new, clear-thinking, leadership can see the big picture benefits and long term advantages.

DC's relationship and history with baseball ventures is not a pretty one. The losing legacy that this team had before and since coming to the District is an economic omen that will generate financial nightmares for years to come. Despite the legendary and able skills of 'Nats' manager Frank Robinson, these nightmares won't be soothed by linking the cost of this bad deal with the trickle-down revenue expected from the vocal minority of DC and non-District suburban baseball boosters. When the reality check of year 2008 and long-term bills for this fiasco come due, I wonder how many fans will be fanatical about their decision.

The news photos of near-empty RFK stadium seats don't lie -- unlike the public officials who approved this over-hyped high profile boondoggle. Even low-panning TV cameras can't hide what the baseball bean counters already know. As my Dad, an avid baseball fan, used to say about used car dealers who want your money: "The louder and faster they talk, the more they lie."

The deep discontent about how paid and elected DC officials have become drunk over spending our taxpayer money will awaken an angry sleeping giant that will vote in this election year and beyond. Their administrative arrogance, ongoing fiscal irresponsibility, socioeconomic insensitivity, and overall operational unaccountability will fuel the blow-back they didn't predict. No wonder there is a rush to lay a large load of concrete and steel before Election Day this November -- and definitely before a new, clear thinking, fiscally responsible, and genuinely accountable mayor takes the Oath of Office on Inauguration Day this January. Again, DC does not mean Dumb Citizens!

All the reasons, among many more, why I am a candidate for District of Columbia mayor.

Dennis Moore
Mayor For A New Washington
www.MooreForPeople.com
mooreforpeople@gmail.com

Posted by: Dennis Moore | June 7, 2006 10:22 AM

For those of you looking for an alternative to Fenty and Cropp that has actually has a shot at winning (no offense Mr. Moore, but this is DC), check out today's Post article on Marie Johns by Lori Montgomery:

With her easy charm, plain talk and thoughtful ideas about the city's most pressing problems, Johns, a retired corporate executive making her first run for elected office, has emerged as a credible alternative to the more experienced front-runners in the Democratic race for mayor, D.C. Council Chairman Linda W. Cropp and Ward 4 council member Adrian M. Fenty, according to insiders in the Cropp and Fenty campaigns and other political observers.

For the full article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/06/AR2006060601307.html

Posted by: Credible Alternative | June 7, 2006 10:55 AM

Jonathan Rees showing his true colors.

Posted by: ^^^^^ | June 7, 2006 10:07 PM

Marcus Skelton, a young Republican (25 years old) is running for Council Member At-Large. This could be being the most interesting race in the city.

Posted by: Marcus Skelton | June 7, 2006 10:57 PM

What makes a 25 year old, Republican, and recent college grad run for DC Council Member At-Large???

Currently, there is not a council member who will:

Work to promote school choice so income and zip code will not limit the quality of education children receive.

Work to lower taxes and fees so families and small businesses can stay in the city.

Work to connect residents in need with non-profit and faith based groups in their neighborhood.

Work to build "accessible" health care in parts of the city that lack emergency care facilities.

www.skeltonforcouncil.org

Posted by: Marcus Skelton | June 7, 2006 11:03 PM

well i say let the Dems eat their own for awhile (i'm all for Ms. Johns exposing Cropp and Fenty's pretensions) then after the primaries see how they match up with a candidate with a common sense approach and true fiscal responsibility who will not be beholden to the same party machine who got us into the mess we see before us today.



Posted by: DCDOGG | June 19, 2006 01:32 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2007 The Washington Post Company