The Un-Reporting: 1996-

How the largest newspapers and magazines reported the 21st century planning for the U.S. Capital City, Washington, D.C.
and did NOT explicitly report on the South Capitol Mall

Extending the Legacy, South Capitol Mall at Virginia Avenue, featured in Time magazine's reporting on Extending the Legacy, and in The Washington Post with the vague and incorrect description:

"The NCPC plan envisions a South Capitol Street transformed from what it is today into a pedestrian-friendly, tree-lined boulevard. M Street is in the foreground."

Despite its significance as part of a lineage including the National Mall, the South Capitol Street Mall was not explicitly reported, right from the start with the reporting following the initial public announcement of the Extending the Legacy effort cir 1996-97, and follows with later reporting about South Capitol area planning, either during the 2002 stadium study, the subsequent 2003 abandonment of the South Capitol Mall, nor that about the South Capitol Street stadium site's public announcement in September 2004.

The Washington Times, March 26, 1996 `Better' capital city often leaves residents out Author: Adrienne T. Washington; THE WASHINGTON TIMES Edition: 2 Section: METROPOLITAN TIMES METROPOLITAN LIFE; Page: C2

Text provided by library on line service.

Adrienne T. Washington

The National Capital Planning Commission today, amid much fanfare at Union Station, officially unveils its futuristic plan, "Extending the Legacy: Planning America's Capital for the 21st Century."

Disney may get its American history theme park on the banks of the Potomac after all, judging from an initial and cursory glance at the grandiose design.

It may take the entertainment conglomerate 20, 30, 50, even 100 years to get exclusive logo rights to Washington's monuments - and thank goodness I won't be around to see it - but the NCPC plan should give us all great pause.

Any time anyone starts talking about a "plan" for a "new capital," as NCPC executive Reginald Griffith did yesterday with editors and reporters of The Washington Times, it makes me more than ! a little nervous. I am not alone.

As a native Washingtonian, I've been around long enough to see the best-laid plans turn into major displacement nightmares for long-standing neighborhoods. What is touted as something to improve the quality of life for an area often translates into that area's total transformation for newcomers.

Many longtime Washington residents can remember when Southwest, Capitol Hill, Foggy Bottom, Old Town Alexandria - to name a few areas - were populated by working-class blacks. They were later priced out of those neighborhoods. T.C. Williams High School in Alexandria bears my old address. I spent many summers with my mother in a Southwest that bears no resemblance to the yuppieville of today.

So when planners, especially those working with the federal government's blessing, start presenting bold, new and radical designs and development initiatives, local folks here know all too well what those plans can porten! We've been down that road of no return before.

For years, native Washingtonians - who've never heard a conspiracy theory they didn't like - have talked about a sinister "plan" by the white establishment to displace the city's black population and diminish its political clout.

That sort of unproductive rhetoric is rearing its ugly head again with the advent of the congressionally mandated control board, the slow but steady dissolution of local autonomy, and the flight of the black middle class as city services are allowed to deteriorate.

This sad state of affairs is in part due to years of benign neglect of Congress and the president.

The predominantly black population of Prince George's County today just didn't occur by happenstance. Now comes this grand NCPC design that seeks to expand the federal presence beyond the Mall. The plan would extend the federal city into local neighborhoods "as economic generators," ostensibly creating "market corridors" and "opportunity areas" anchored by new government offices and tourist attractions that would supposedly revitalize depressed areas of the District.

Redesigned and increased mass-transit avenues are on the drawing board to accommodate an influx of commuters and tourists. We all know that this is the Tale of Two Cities - one, the nation's capital, Washington, D.C.; the other, the local city, the District to us.

In 1791, it was Pierre L'Enfant's plan that laid the groundwork. In 1901, it was the McMillan plan with its federal enclave, which is primarily responsible for the city's current divided, bifurcated status.

Now comes the NCPC and the danger of wiping out a local presence all together. It would appear that someone comes up with a new plan for the nation's capital every 100 years or so.

If history is a barometer, the locals will lose. Invariably the question arises: When and where should the needs of local residents be given priority over the desires of those who view! These special 60-odd square miles as America's town? Six years in the making, the NCPC's draft development plan would create a Washington vastly different from the one 600,000 residents call home today. Still, Mr. Griffith emphatically states that "there is nothing in this mission that speaks to displacement" and that the NCPC "will not permit the displacement of people" as the number of federal monuments and museums in the city doubles by the middle of the next century.

A longtime Anacostia resident with ties to Howard University's architectural school, Mr. Griffith is no stranger to the former proposals and plans that were supposedly designed to improve life in the nation's capital but essentially removed life from it.

He is sensitive to the skepticism this plan presents, despite his contention of extensive local comment.

He insists that the NCPC's draft proposal is a "people plan" and will provide a successful role model to other cities. Nonetheless, this plan, which is big on vision and short on specifics, has been criticized as "loopy" and "a collection of geometric fantasies." It is characterized as an "outdated, top-down, Olympian approach to planning of the nation's capital" by some area planners.

However well-intentioned, the NCPC's futuristic plan to make the nation's capital what House Speaker Newt Gingrich calls "an urban jewel" requires close, careful scrutiny by Washingtonians, even as the American people weigh in with their opinions

The Washington Times, March 31, 1996 Commission lays out plans for 21st-century Washington `Extending the Legacy': Visionary project would radically change city Author: Thomas D. Sullivan; THE WASHINGTON TIMES Edition: 2, Section: DARTSARCHITECTURE; Page: D3

On Tuesday, the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), the federal body charged with planning for the District, formally unveiled its vision for the future of Washington. Called "Extending the Legacy: Planning America's Capital for the 21st Century," the NCPC plan is the third grand plan for Washington. It follows Pierre L'Enfant's 1791 vision of a grid of streets divided by diagonal avenues, and the 1901 McMillan Plan, which uncluttered and extended the Mall and established a system of parks for the District. Readers can get a good overview of the legacy proposal by dropping in at Union Station through April 7, where they can see the 20-by-11-foot model of the city, plus panels and videos explaining the plan. Best of all, viewers of the displays are asked for their comments about the proposals.

The commission's "Monumental Core Plan" for the District is based on five "key ideas," which include specific proposals:

* Building on the L'Enfant and McMillan plans. Proposals include preserving the Mall by locating future museums and memorials elsewhere; restoring Maryland and Virginia avenues; reclaiming the Potomac and Anacostia waterfronts.

* Unifying the city and the core, with the Capitol as the center. Proposals include redeveloping North and South Capitol streets as major urban boulevards; making East Capitol Street a new gateway to Washington with museums and parks; reviving the Anacostia waterfront with museums and housing.

* Using new memorials, museums and other public buildings to stimulate economic development. Proposals include creating public-private development corporations, first focusing on South Capitol Street; using new federal buildings to anchor mixed-use developments that welcome the public after 5 p.m.; developing North and South Capitol streets as major urban boulevards lined with shops, offices, restaurants and housing.

I call this poor reporting for its lack of specifics and its reliance on vagueness.

Note the lack of any specific reference to a "Mall", "promenade", "linear park" nor "green way" for South Capitol Street, or anything about it's right of way being widened.

Note the substitution instead of more vague terms -- less useful for informing readers -- which I addressed in my earlier entry to this blog, "Definitions and the politically useful sloppy use of words"; the favorite such vague term being "boulevard".

“Boulevard” is the term used to describe both North and South Capitol Streets, even though only South Capitol Street is illustrated with a widened continuous right of way, with any widening at North Capitol Street shown confined to a traffic circle at New York Avenue.

Although this is strangely also true with the text within Extending the Legacy, that document clearly showcases the South Capitol Mall on its very front cover.

This is likewise true with the contemporaneous reporting from Washington, D.C.'s other largest circulation newspaper, The Washington Post.

An article by The Washington Post staff writer Benjamin Forgery "A Capital that improves with age" proposal's unblinking vision brings the future into focus" features an illustration that shows the South Capitol Mall with the description (7) :

"North and South Capitol Street remade as broad tree-lined boulevards"

Roger K. Lewis

An article by The Washington Post staff writer Roger K. Lewis "Fine-Tuning a Vision For D.C.'s Next Century"

"Unifying the city and the core. North and South Capitol streets would be transformed into tree-lined urban boulevards linked to the city's nearby residential neighborhoods, especially Old Anacostia. A relocated Supreme Court finally would occupy a proper place in the geometric scheme of things at the southern terminus of South Capitol Boulevard near the river's edge. At the east end of East Capitol Street, a new gateway complex devoted to educational, cultural, recreational and entertainment functions would replace RFK Stadium."

This Roger Lewis article, like the Benjamin Forgery articles and that by Adrienne Washington, can not bring itself to explicitly report the widened South Capitol Mall corridor right of way. But it goes further in effectively mis-reporting the proposal by featuring the following illustration with the incorrect caption:

"The NCPC plan envisions a South Capitol Street transformed from what it is today into a pedestrian-friendly, tree-lined boulevard. M Street is in the foreground."

Actually, this is South Capitol Street with M Street in the foreground. This illustration is a vantage further to the south

This conveniently vague sort of reporting permeates the mass media "reporting."

Time magazine, in its reporting on this planning effort, features the above nighttime image of the northern end of the South Capitol Mall at its traffic circle with Virginia Avenue (this is the current site of the elevated SW/SE Freeway viaduct), but not any of the illustrations that show this South Capitol Mall's broad green way .

Newsweek magazine, owned by The Washington Post Company, and Time's main competitor, did not run any accounts at all of this planning, IIRC.

The Los Angeles Times August 8, 1996 Washington dateline " Album American" article "D.C. planners come up with a capital idea; Panel envisions a future where Washington is a city served by water taxis and the Supreme Court gets a new home" ends with the photo description:

" With the removal of a major freeway, Washington's South Capitol Street could be another picturesque Pennsylvania Avenue."

This is telling as Pennsylvania Avenue is simply a wide boulevard with sidewalks, but without a promenade, with a total building line to building line right of way width of 160'- which is what happened with the post 2001 planning for the South Capitol Street 'Gateway'.

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, D.C.
looking towards the Old Post Office at right and the U.S. Capitol at left,
presumably from the 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue
Covington & Burling building
at the intersection with 12th Street

National Capital Planning Commission Deputy Executive Director MARCEL ACOSTA's published letter to the editor in The Washington Post, March 27, 2006, which I wrote about in my earlier post "Definitions and the politically useful sloppy use of words" does not set but rather follows in this tradition.

So did something, quite plausibly, in ensuring that none of these lame stream media accounts actually reported the SCM.

An Un-Reported Story- South Capitol Street Frederick Douglass Mall

Why wasn't the public informed?
MLB - Covington & Burling - DC Sports and Entertainment Commision

From The Common Denominator

http://www.thecommondenominator.com/010906_op-ed.html

Why wasn't the public informed?
(Published January 9, 2006)

By JOHN HANRAHAN

The law firm of W. Andrew Jack, one of the city's top negotiators in the deal to bring Major League Baseball (MLB) to the District of Columbia, has MLB itself and at least one baseball franchise, the Boston Red Sox, as clients. Jack, a partner in Covington & Burling, is outside general counsel to the D.C. Sports and Entertainment Commission, which led the effort to bring the Montreal Expos franchise to D.C.

The information that Covington & Burling represents MLB and the Red Sox is contained on the law firm's Web site. It has not heretofore been reported in the press, or publicized by the sports commission and Mayor Anthony A. Williams, even though to a lay person it raises the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Given the year-long concern of many D.C. City Council members and citizens that the city's negotiators obtained a terrible deal with Major League Baseball – and with the estimated South Capitol stadium cost, now pegged at $667 million (up from $535 million a year ago) – one can wonder about the appropriateness of Jack being on one side of the table negotiating on behalf of the city, while on the other side of the table is his law firm's own client, Major League Baseball. At the very least, isn't this information which the public should have been told going into the city's talks with MLB? This matter should be referred to the Office of D.C. Bar Counsel for a ruling on the conflicts issue.

It should be noted that the law firm's Web site does not show Jack having done any work himself for MLB or its teams, but I didn't get a chance to ask him if this were the case. Jack did not return my phone call or answer my request for an interview, forwarded through the Sports and Entertainment Commission.

Mitchell F. Dolin, a Covington attorney, called me back after I attempted to contact Jack and two Covington partners who have done work for MLB. Dolin said he would try to get answers to my questions. Instead, the Sports and Entertainment Commission, in consultation with Dolin and various individuals I had called, issued -- just before The Common Denominator's deadline -- a statement that reads in its entirety:

"The DC Sports & Entertainment Commission (Sports Commission) works diligently to ensure that its staff, Board and consultants work to provide services that are in the best interest of the District of Columbia. The Sports Commission regularly obtains all appropriate disclosures with regard to potential conflicts of interest among prospective consultants and Board members and staff. With regard to negotiations with Major League Baseball, appropriate review has determined that there are no conflicts of interest by any Commission members, counsel and consultants retained by the Sports Commission or their respective firms. Indeed, the Sports Commission is benefiting from the able and zealous advocacy they are providing. With respect to counsel, we note that law firms that have recognized expertise with particular industry sectors representing multiple clients typically deal with such circumstance by making disclosures to their clients and securing appropriate consents. Counsel followed this procedure in this case."

The mayor's press spokesman, Vince Morris, voiced a similar view. "My impression is that none of them [the negotiators] have done hands-on work for [MLB] or any teams," he said. "They're very talented lawyers, and when you're in a big firm there is often going to be overlap" between areas of expertise that various members of the firm are engaged in. The mayor "has great faith" in his negotiators and "in general, we feel pretty psyched to have such talented lawyers as [William N.] Hall and [Mark H.] Tuohey working for the city for free. It saves taxpayers big bucks."

If – despite the commission's vague and generally unresponsive statement – all appropriate steps were followed by Jack, Covington, the sports commission and MLB, then Jack and Covington are likely to be technically in compliance with the conflict of interest rules under D.C.'s rules of professional conduct for attorneys.

Perhaps. But if so, this shows the weakness of the conflict rules when it comes to public bodies – especially one as secretive as the Sports and Entertainment Commission. In the case of a public agency, the citizens – not the agency – should be considered the ultimate clients, and we certainly were not informed that one of our chief negotiators was negotiating with his law firm's own client. Would we want this if we were, say, negotiating with the tobacco industry?

According to Covington & Burling's Web site, the firm's Jeremy D. Spector's "representative clients in the sports world include" Major League Baseball and the Boston Red Sox. The Web site also said senior tax partner Andrew H. Friedman's clients included MLB and the Red Sox.

Spector's "practice involves tax planning, IRS controversy work, and the structuring of corporate transactions, with particular emphasis in advising sports leagues and teams. . . ." Additionally, Spector's "sports-related work encompasses such matters as the purchase and sale of sports franchises, public and private stadium financing, player compensation, and the treatment of sponsorship, licensing and broadcast agreements."

Spector and Friedman did not return my calls, so I had no chance to ask them about their specific tax and sports-related work for MLB and if any of it overlapped with Jack's work as a city negotiator with MLB.

Covington's representation of the Red Sox can be considered relevant to this discussion because that franchise is among the 30 teams that jointly own the Washington Nationals/Expos franchise. These 30 franchise owners stand to share in an estimated profit of $330 million from the sale of the team to a new owner. The better the deal MLB negotiated with the city, the more valuable the Expos franchise, and, therefore, the higher the payment for each of the 30 owners when the Nationals/Expos franchise is sold.

The law firms of two other key city negotiators – William N. Hall of Winston & Strawn and Mark H. Tuohey of Vinson & Elkins – have lesser connections to professional baseball, as neither firm has represented MLB itself, according to attorneys at both firms and a limited news search. Tuohey is chairman of the sports commission and the lead negotiator, and Hall is a board member and longtime chairman of the commission's baseball committee.

Both Hall and Tuohey are unpaid for their baseball negotiating work, while Covington & Burling was paid $340,000 for its commission work in fiscal 2002. Of this, $120,000 related to bringing baseball back to the city, according to a 2003 D.C. Auditor's report. Figures for the last three fiscal years – when baseball talks intensified – were not immediately available from the commission at deadline.

According to Winston & Strawn's Web site, attorney M. Carter DeLorme has "represented Major League Baseball franchises in both a consulting and lead trial counsel role with respect to their player salary arbitration concerns." In a brief telephone conversation, DeLorme said it would not be appropriate for him to name or discuss his baseball franchise clients. Also, the firm's M. Finley Maxson's experience "has included transactions involving a major league baseball club. . . ."

Hall said in a telephone interview that he had never personally represented MLB or any team, and that Winston & Strawn had never represented Major League Baseball. He also said his firm's representations of management in player salary arbitration matters did not constitute anything approaching a conflict of interest.

"There is no there there," Hall said. "The entity we were negotiating with was Major League Baseball" and not any of the individual franchises. Hall would not comment on Covington & Burling's representation of MLB.

The Web site of Tuohey's Vinson & Elkins law firm shows that attorney Christopher A. Knepp "represents management's interests in numerous major league baseball salary arbitration cases." News reports and the Web site also indicate Vinson & Elkins has represented former owners of the Texas Rangers baseball team and has assisted the city of Arlington, Texas, and the Rangers in developing Arlington Stadium. I found no indication the firm or Tuohey has represented MLB or any of its teams.

In a telephone interview, Knepp, who left Vinson & Elkins on Dec. 31, said he had not represented Major League Baseball franchises directly in player salary arbitration proceedings. Rather, he said, since 1981 he has had as a client Tal Smith Enterprises, a consulting firm owned by Tal Smith, who today is president of the Houston Astros baseball team. Knepp said the Smith firm, at one time, handled arbitration cases for 15 or so MLB teams and that he had assisted Smith in 100 to 150 of those cases over the years. Knepp said he is continuing to work for Tal Smith since leaving Vinson & Elkins last month.

Tuohey did not return a reporter's phone call or respond to requests through the sports commission for comment on Jack's involvement in the baseball talks. Commission spokesman Tony Robinson said Tuohey told him that because of the press of other business he would have no further comment beyond the commission's written statement.

***

Hanrahan, a former newspaper reporter and former director of The Fund for Investigative Journalism, is opposed to public financing of the baseball stadium.

South Capitol Mall Sell-Out
Frederic Delano's 'Family':
U.S. National Capital Planning Commission,
the "Committee of 100", and Covington & Burling

1201 Pennsylvania Avenue
the Covington & Burling building

D.C. Sports and Entertainment Commission gets into "bringing Major League Baseball back to Washington, D.C." with the help of Covington & Burling the firm with the connections in representing a great portion of the business of professional sports: at least as early as Spring 2002

2002 Stadium study has site that directly conflicts with NCPC's Extending the Legacy South Capitol Frederick Douglass Mall/Promenade; yet where is there any indication that NCPC objected?

2002, December 18, "Committee of 100" testimony that it does not object to list of stadium site options with the "M Street" South Capitol site.

2003 February release of NCPC South Capitol Street Urban Design Study; it is reported to public 5 months later in July 2003. It abandons SCap Promenade ostensibly to avoid eminent domain which is nonetheless embraced for real estate development , such as the Nationals Stadium..

Why does NCPC and "Committee of 100" abandon the Promenade -- a decision which physically accommodates a campaign by the DC Sports and Entertainment Commission and Covington & Burling that would work for placing Nationals Stadium to block the Promenade -- without evident controversy or debate?

Only God and those involved know.

But it is worth noting that both NCPC and Committee of 100 are "cousins" of sorts, and "offspring" of the families of, you may have guessed it, Covington & Burling.

James Harry Covington (1870 - 1942)

James Harry Covington (August 15, 1863 – May 14, 1939) was an American jurist and politician. He represented the Maryland's 1st congressional district in the United States House of Representatives from 1909 to 1914, and served as chief justice of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia from 1914 to 1918.

Covington was born in Easton, Maryland, and attended the Maryland Military Academy at Oxford. He entered the law department of the University of Pennsylvania at Philadelphia in 1891, attending at the same time special lectures in history, literature, and economics, and graduated in 1894.

Soon thereafter, Covington began to practice of law in Easton. He was an unsuccessful Democratic nominee for the Maryland State Senate in 1901, and served as State’s attorney for Talbot County, Maryland, from 1903 to 1908. He was elected as a Democrat to Congress in 1908 and served the 1st Congressional district of Maryland from March 4, 1909 until his resignation on September 30, 1914, to accept the position of chief justice of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.

Covington served as chief justice of that court from October 1, 1914, to June 1, 1918, when he resigned to practice law in Washington, D.C.. He was a professor of law at Georgetown University from 1914 to 1919, and was appointed by President Woodrow Wilson as a member of the United States Railroad Commission in January 1918. He and Edward B. Burling established the law firm of Covington & Burling on January 1, 1919. Covington died in Washington, D.C., and is interred in Spring Hill Cemetery of Easton.

Covington served as Worthy Grand Master on the Supreme Executive Committee of the Kappa Sigma Fraternity from 1892–1894.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Harry_Covington

Kappa Sigma Official Site

Kappa Sigmas are taught to live their lives by the Star and Crescent, which are the symbols of the Fraternity that make up the official badge:

The Star and Crescent shall not be worn by every man, but only by him who is worthy to wear it. He must be a gentleman... a man of honor and courage... a man of zeal, yet humble... an intelligent man...a man of truth... one who tempers action with wisdom and, above all else, one who walks in the light of God.^[9]

The Star and Crescent is also used as part of the guidlines behind Kappa Sigma's strict no-tolerance anti-hazing policy. The Fraternity takes all allegations of hazing very seriously and routinely pulls charters from guilty chapters which can be as old as 130 years.

They also follow the four cornerstones of the Fraternity: Fellowship, Leadership, Scholarship, and Service.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kappa_Sigma

The entity today known as Covington & Burling was founded in 1919 by J.H. Covington, a former U.S. Congressman from Maryland; the firm got its current name in 1924 when it was joined by Chicago RR lawyer Edward Burling. He was married to (Louise Peasely) the sister of (Mathilda Peasely) wife of Frederic Delano, an uncle of 1933-45 U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. involved with numerous endeavors

Edward B. Burling (1877 - 1966)

Edward Burnham Burling (1871–1966) was a prominent American lawyer and the name partner of the Washington, D.C.-based law firm of Covington & Burling.^[1] He grew up in Eldora, Iowa and worked in a grocery store at age eleven, and went on to Grinnell College and then to Harvard Law School. After graduation he returned to the Midwest to practice in Chicago for almost 25 years.

Later he came to Washington as general councel for the United States Shipping Board where he was introduced to Harry Covington. They established the law firm on January 1, 1919.

In the 1940s, Burling was one of the core group brought together by Paul Nitze and Christian Herter to establish the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. Mr. Burling served on the School's Advisory Council until his death in 1966.^[2] The Chair of International Law and Organizations is named after him since 1972.^[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_B._Burling

Frederic Delano (1863 - 1953)

This photo is a crop of a group picture of the Board of the U.S. Federal Reserve, in 1914.

Frederic Adrian Delano (1863-1953) was an American railroad president born in Hong Kong, China of the Delano family. He is the uncle of U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Frederic Adrian Delano was also a member of the Commercial Club of Chicago which impacted the development of Chicago in the 19th and 20th centuries.

After graduating from Harvard University in 1885 he was employed by the Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad in various capacities, rising from the position of civil engineer to be general manager at Chicago. For a time he was consulting engineer to the United States War Department in respect to the railroads of the Philippine Islands. In 1905 he became president of the Wheeling and Lake Erie, of the Wabash-Pittsburgh Terminal, and of the Wabash railroads. He was appointed one of the receivers for the Wabash in 1911, and in 1913, he was elected president of the Monon Railroad. He was vice president of the American Unitarian Association in 1907. His addresses were published under the titles Questions of the Hour (1911) and Are Our Railroads Fairly Treated? (1913). He was also the chairman of the influential National Capital Park and Planning Commission and helped approve and oversee the building of the Pentagon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederic_Adrian_Delano

Frederic Delano, brother of Sarah Delano, the mother of 32nd U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was the man who founded both the Committee of 100 and the National Capital Planning Commission. He was an original incorporator of Brookings Institution, Carnegie Institution, and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, director of the Smithsonian Museum, Commission for Relief in Belgium, and Belgian American Educational Foundation set up by Herbert Hoover in World War I, chairman National Planning Board 1934-43

87.3.2 Records of Chairman Frederic A. Delano
History: Frederick A. Delano served on the NRPB and its predecessors, July 1933-August 1943, and as Chairman, National Planning Board, 1933-34, and NRPB, 1939-44.

According to the the Committee of 100 web site:

The creation in 1901 of the Senate Park Commission -better known as the McMillan Commission - led to the articulation of a sweeping initiatives for extending the L'Enfant Plan and for establishing strong standards for parks, monuments, public buildings, and scenic vistas far beyond the monumental core of Washington. D.C. In the spirit of idealism that suffused the age of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, the recommendations of the McMillan Commission inspired successive reforms: the establishment of the Commission of Fine Arts in 1910, the Height of Buildings Act that was passed the same year, and the Washington Zoning Ordinance of 1920. These eventful years comprised the background to the establishment of the Committee of 100.

And yet, another essential aspect of the Committee's founding was the widespread fear among concerned citizens in the 1920s that the achievements of the preceding quarter century might prove to be fragile or insubstantial without continued oversight and advocacy. The distraction of World War I, followed by the laissez-faire of the early 1920s and the escapist "Back to Normalcy" spirit, led a number of prominent planners to undertake initiatives to preserve the momentum of planning in the Nation's Capital. When Frederic A. Delano was asked in 1922 to assume the chairmanship of the American Civic Association and to form a Committee of 100 on the Federal City within that group, he accepted because, as he put it, "We all realized that comprehensive planning would be more constructive than sporadic resistance to a constant succession of proposals unrelated to a general plan." Moreover, Delano and his fellow members of the American Civic Association consciously sought to uphold the legacy of the McMillan Commission, which they feared was in jeopardy. Indeed, reminiscing in 1938, Delano recalled that when he was asked to assume the chairmanship of the Civic Association, he also was explicitly "asked to undertake a revival of the recommendations of the 1901 commission, and I began my work by inviting 100 citizens to join me."

When the original Committee of 100 was established in 1923, it was divided into ten subcommittees often persons each. These were asked to report back to the entire Committee in 1924. The subcommittees were as follows: architecture; forest and park preserves; school sites; playgrounds; housing and reservations for housing; zoning; streets, highways, and transit; extension of metropolitan Washington beyond the District lines; waterfront development; and industrial development and limitations. Responding to the recommendations of these subcommittees, the Committee of 100 released its first report in January 1924. The report recommended a major extension of Washington's park and forest preserves under the guidance of an overall planning agency that would focus on park planning as one of its major responsibilities.

For a number of years, prominent Washingtonians had decried the loss of open and scenic countryside around the Nation's Capital to unplanned or ill-planned development [WHAT ABOUT NATIONALS STADIUM?!!!]. Not the least of these prominent Washingtonians were members of the business community. Before the creation of the Committee of 100, the Washington Board of Trade had drafted a bill to create a National Capital Park Commission with authority to acquire lands in the District of Columbia, Virginia, and Maryland with the advice of the Commission of Fine Arts. The report released by the Committee of 100 in 1924 lent decisive support to this legislative initiative The Ball-Gibson Act creating the National Capital Park Commission was signed into law on June 6, 1924.

But the Committee of 100 had advocated more than just an agency for parkland acquisition. The Committee had recommended that broad planning powers be vested in such an agency. And it was the Committee's continued advocacy of this concept that prompted the passage of the Capper-Gibson Act on April 1, 1926. This act overhauled the agency created in 1924 and renamed it the National Capital Park and Planning Commission. Its authority was extended to include preparing, developing, and maintaining a comprehensive plan for the Nation's Capital and its environs embracing transportation, subdivisions, public housing sites, sewerage, zoning, commerce and industry, and other elements of city and regional planning. Frederic A. Delano, who was chairman of the Committee of 100 from 1923 to 1944, served concurrently as chairman of the National Capital Park and Planning Commission through most of its formative years. Delano directed pioneering efforts aimed at the creation of comprehensive planning for the federal city, most notably a comprehensive plan for parks, parkways, and recreation facilities for Washington and environs, submitted to Congress in 1928. This plan gave the impetus to the passage of the Capper-Cramton Act of May 29, 1930, which authorized funds for parkland acquisition not only in Washington, D.C., but also for the George Washington Memorial Parkway on both sides of the Potomac River, as well as extensions of parkland along Rock Creek and the Anacostia River into suburban Maryland.

Throughout the first decades of its existence, the Committee of 100 maintained a strong liaison with NCPPC - a liaison that went far beyond the propitious circumstance of Frederic A. Delano's chairmanship of both organizations - and with other vital civic organizations in the Nation's Capital. Horace W. Peaslee, vice-chairman of the Committee of 100 from 1923 until his death in 1959, created the Architects' Advisory Council, a group of architects who provided free design review to individuals seeking building permits, and Allied Architects, a group responsible for helping to select outstanding architects for the design of federal buildings. John Ihlder, chairman of the Committee's subcommittee on housing, urged the protection of low-density residential areas throughout the city and worked to ameliorate poor housing conditions.

The years of the Depression and the New Deal constituted an ambiguous time in the history of planning for the federal city. In some ways, the legacy of the McMillan Commission continued to be extended: the passage of the Shipstead-Luce Act of 1930, which provided for review by the Commission of Fine Arts of new construction adjacent. to the monumental core of Washington, and also adjacent to Rock Creek Park, Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway and other strategic sites and vistas of the L'Enfant Plan; the continued construction of grand architectural monuments in keeping with the "City Beautiful" vision - the Supreme Court building, the National Archives, the National Gallery of Art, the Jefferson Memorial; and the construction of public housing.

The New Deal reforms, however, created certain problems. A vast influx of federal workers precipitated severe housing shortages in Washington, along with the first major problems of traffic congestion. The emergency of the Depression, and the experimental nature of the. New Deal programs created to alleviate the crisis, frequently impelled the creation of short-term federal agencies, whose imperative need for physical premises prompted expedient shortcuts around the comprehensive planning efforts of NCPPC. Despite the fact that Chairman Delano enjoyed considerable influence - not only due to his professional stature but also due to the fact that his nephew was Franklin Delano Roosevelt - the power of NCPPC continued to be diminished by short-term policy considerations. This situation took a dramatic turn for the worse in the 1 940s when World War II preempted almost every long-term planning provision for the federal city in favor of emergency needs in the wartime nerve center. In 1941, for example, the War Department pushed through its plans for the construction of the Pentagon over the objections of both the Fine Arts Commission and NCPPC. Interior Secretary Harold Ickes warned against "further encroachment upon the parks and playgrounds of the National Capital," and commented sourly upon the "grab bag method of putting a road or a building on any bit of vacant land that can be discovered.

In the aftermath of World War II, the growth of the Washington metropolitan area continued to be explosive. Concurrently, the Committee of 100 entered a new era with the passing of its founding chairman, Frederic A. Delano, in 1944: Successive chairmen were Supreme Court Justice Owen J. Roberts (-1945), retired Congressman Clifton A. Woodrum (1946-47), Board of Education President C. Melvin Sharpe (1948-57), and Rear Admiral Neill Phillips, USN Ret. (1958-67). Later chairing the Committee were Grosvenor Chapman, FAIA (1968-70), David Sanders Clark (1971-72), Mrs. James H. Rowe, Jr. (1973-80), Mrs. Marion K. Schlefer (1980-83), David Grinnell (1983-87), and Dorn C. McGrath, Jr., AICP (1987-present). The postwar period witnessed a major change in the spirit of public-sector planning as well, a change that would challenge the ideals and the mission of the Committee of 100.

From its early days as champion of the McMillan Commission's legacy -the legacy of the classicist "City Beautiful" movement - and its role as an advocate and initiator of federal planning programs created to further the work of McMillan-style planning, the Committee of 100 was ironically forced in the period after World War II into more of an adversary stance against some of the very planning agencies it helped to create.

What accounted for this was a shift in intellectual and cultural values. In the post-World War II period, the "City Beautiful" version of civic order was gradually overtaken and supplanted by the legacy of radical modernism, itself augmented by the culture of the automobile. In the formative years that produced the Committee of 100, the war against urban blight had been waged on behalf of expanded parkland low-density public housing, and the long-term concepts of the L'Enfant Plan. But after World War II, the Committee was chagrined to find that the war against urban blight was redirected into massive urban renewal and freeway projects that produced major problems of fragmented development and over-building. To many observers, these nominal reform efforts seemed to constitute a case of well-intentioned ideas gone totally out of control - to the point where the freeways and the high-rise redevelopment appeared to be a new form of urban blight unto themselves....

http://www.committeeof100.net/history.html

According to the NCPC web site Frederic Delano, who later became the leading light of the American Civic Association and Chicago's Regional Planning Association, moving on to the National Capital Parks and Planning Commission in Washington and, finally, becoming Roosevelt's chief of the National Planning Resources Board.

http://www.nbm.org/blueprints/90s/winter93/page2/page2.htm

The Triumph of 1914

"E" Groups That Did Not Support the South Capitol Mall Oppose Poplar Point Development

2002 South Capitol Nationals Stadium
"Committee of 100" response; December 18, 2002:

Illustrations 1997, left, 1997 Extending the Legacy close up; right, 2002 Stadium Study so-called M Street site at South Capitol Street

"we really have very little basis for making comparisons and reaching informed decisions among the remaining sites."

December 18, 2002 "Testimony of the Committee Of 100 On The Federal City At The Joint Roundtable Of The Committees On Economic Development & Finance And Revenue On Major League Baseball In The District Of Columbia, Regarding Potential Stadium Locations And Stadium Financing Options" by Jim Nathanson

"...As you may well know, the Committee has been a longstanding proponent of returning the national pastime [baseball] to our home city -- and the nation's capital. We have followed efforts to do so over the past several years, have been a contribute to the public dialogue, and a participant in public meetings leading to the most recent report "Washington, DC Major League Baseball Park Site Evaluation Report..." That was the report with 5 sites -- Mt. Vernon Triangle; Capitol North; New York Metro Avenue; RFK stadium north parking lot; and the so-called M Street SE site immediately east of South Capitol Street. This December 18, 2002 Committee of 100 testimony opposed the first 2 options, Mt. Vernon Triangle and Capitol North.

Longstanding planning policy for the Mt Vernon Triangle and all recent studies (there have been several) have called for its redevelopment as a vibrant, mixed use, heavily residential neighborhood. With the exception of a few individuals (mostly staff of the Sports Commission), participants in the planning work and outreach sessions uniformly rejected the notion of a stadium in this location...

Studies have shown that the desired developmental pattern now underway will produce more jobs, about 4 times the net fiscal returns and do far more to support area retail and service establishments than would a stadium. Further, market rate housing and commercial projects are proceeding without subsidy. Assuming the report's projections, the stadium would involve significant lost employment and revenue opportunities when compared with those yielded from currently underway and reasonably anticipated development -- and is likely to require substantial public support. Further, in comparison with other sites, the costs of producing the stadium in this location is far more expensive. A triple whammy.

However for the remaining 3 sites, it states:

The report identifies three candidate sites that appear good locations for the stadium. We encourage the city and the Sports Commission, working with prospective ownership groups to immediately perform and present comparative analysis of which of these sites best addresses the goals of the city, prospective ownership groups and Major League Baseball. At this point, we really have very little basis for making comparisons and reaching informed decisions among the remaining sites [emphasis added].

Illustrations from the web site of the "Committee of 100"
Check out the "Committee of 100" for yourself at
http://www.committeeof100.net/

"....to safeguard and advance the fundamental planning, environmental and aesthetic values inherited from the L'Enfant Plan and the McMillan Commission that give Washington its historic distinction, natural beauty and overall livability."

Who got Involved

2002- efforts to bring Major League Baseball to Washington D.C. with a new stadium, 3 site options, with 1 abutting the existing 130' South Capitol Street right of way.

This study and its November 6, 2002 "Major League Baseball Park Site Evaluation Project Report", comes with the DC Sports and Entertainment Commission's negotiating efforts to bring Major League Baseball back to Washington, DC, through the efforts of its Chairman, Mark Tuohey, a Partner in the law firm Vinson & Elkins; one of its members William Hall, a Partner in the law firm Winston & Strawn; and W. Andrew Jack a Partner at the law firm Covington& Burling.

Upper right illustration from: http://www.cov.com/offices/washington/description.html

From: http://www.vinson-elkins.com/lawyers/lawyer_detail.asp?H4AttyID=000321664305

Mark [Tuohey] concentrates his practice in complex civil and criminal litigation, internal corporate investigations and compliance programs. His practice is largely devoted to representing corporations, their officers and directors, and individuals in civil and white-collar criminal litigation and Congressional investigations. In addition, Mark is involved in alternative dispute resolution matters including arbitration and mediation, in the United States and abroad.

Activities and Affiliations

• Distinctions: The Best Lawyers in America in business litigation and criminal defense, 2005 and in commercial litigation and white-collar criminal defense, 2006-2007 and in bet-the-company litigation in 2007; Chambers USA: America's Leading Business Lawyers in litigation law, 2004-2006; International Who's Who of Business Lawyers in business crime law, 2005-2006; Euromoney's Guide to the World's Leading United States Litigation Lawyers, 2005
• President: District of Columbia Bar, 1993-1994
• Chair: District of Columbia Bar Foundation, 1996-2001
• Fellow: American College of Trial Lawyers; American Bar Foundation; American Law Institute
• Member: District of Columbia Federal Judicial Nominating Commission; American Bar Association House of Delegates; Judicial Conference of the District of Columbia Circuit; Judicial Conference of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals; Mayor's Advisory Committee on the Office of Corporation Counsel; ABA House of Delegates, 1990-2003
• Master: William J. Bryant American Inn of Court
• Faculty Member: National Institute for Trial Advocacy
• Lecturer and Writer: various trial advocacy topics, including issues relating to complex civil and criminal litigation, and Congressional oversight investigations
• Trustee: Catholic University of America; Gonzaga College High School; Washington Jesuit Academy
• Recipient: 2001 D.C. Lawyer of the Year, Bar Association of the District of Columbia

From http://www.winston.com/attprof.nsf/vSearchFrames/AVOS-3UUP3J

Bill Hall is a partner and head of the Washington, D.C. office's environmental department, and has been extensively involved in D.C. revitalization activities. His environmental and health and safety practice includes representing the Resilient Floor Covering Institute (RFCI), the National Paint and Coatings Association (NPCA), and companies in the resilient flooring, paint, pharmaceutical, chemical, and power tool industries.

Experience and Clients: Mr. Hall has handled regulatory, enforcement, and litigation matters involving waste disposal and cleanup, asbestos, lead paint, recycled and green materials, chemical production, water and air permits, and occupational health and safety. He has participated in numerous agency rulemakings and has acted as lead counsel for RFCI in judicial review petitions challenging the OSHA asbestos standard, OSHA slip resistance standard, EPA recycled material regulations, and New York state green building requirements. He has defended NPCA in lead paint litigation in Baltimore, Maryland and defended clients in asbestos personal injury and property damage cases. Mr. Hall has represented corporate clients and PRP committees in responding to CERCLA cleanup demands and natural resource damage claims and has been lead counsel in a CERCLA contribution action against 1,181 defendants in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Mr. Hall has also defended clients in RCRA corrective action matters and Clean Water Act citizen suits. He has lobbied Congress on EPA, HUD, CPSC, and California Prop 65 issues and lobbied state legislatures and the D.C. City Council on asbestos and green building issues. He also has represented insureds in obtaining insurance coverage for environmental and asbestos liabilities. Pro Bono/Professional/Community Activities: Mr. Hall is a board member of the D.C. Sports and Entertainment Commission, a mayoral appointment, and has been chair of the Commission’s baseball committee since 1996. He has played a leading role in bringing major league baseball back to Washington. Mr. Hall also is a member of the Federal City Council, a business and professional organization committed to improving Washington, D.C. From 1994 to 1995, he served on the board of the National Capital Development Corporation, which developed the MCI Sports Arena. From 2001 - 2005, Mr. Hall has served on the Restoration Advisory Board for the Spring Valley (DC) neighborhood, which addresses environmental issues arising from chemical warfare production at American University during World War I.

Education: Mr. Hall received a B.A. in Economics, cum laude, from Bucknell University in 1975. He received a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center in 1978, where he was case and notes editor of the Georgetown Law Journal. Recent Speeches and Publications: Mr. Hall has written and lectured on a wide range of environmental topics. He is co-author of a lead article in the Harvard Law Review on the disclosure of pre-sentence reports (June 1980).

It is Covington & Burling, located at its building at 1200 Pennsylvannian Avenue NW with its extensive background with working in the field of professional sports that appears to be the most connected.

From: http://www.cov.com/lawyers/ajack/biography.html

W. Andrew Jack, partner: has a diverse corporate and securities practice with clients principally in the industrial manufacturing, real estate and sports and entertainment industries. His experience includes mergers and acquisitions, financing activities, venture capital investments,Sarbanes-Oxley and 1934 Act compliance, corporate governance counseling, and executive compensation arrangements. He is listed in Chambers USA: America's Leading Lawyers for Business 2005......

As outside general counsel to the District of Columbia Sports and Entertainment Commission, Mr. Jack helped lead the successful effort to return Major League Baseball to Washington D.C. and he remains involved in baseball matters as well as licensing and related matters with D.C. United, Anschutz Entertainment Group, ARAMARK and others arising from the Commission's operation of RFK Stadium and the D.C. Armory. He previously advised the National Football League in several high-profile matters including the League's public-private partnership with the City of Cleveland to design, develop and finance the new Cleveland Browns stadium, sale of the expansion Browns franchise to Alfred Lerner, sale of the Houston Texans expansion franchise to Bob McNair, capital markets financing for NFL Films' headquarters, specialized software development projects for unique NFL applications, and efforts to develop NFL-themed entertainment and dining establishments. Other sports and entertainment experience includes personal seat licensing programs for football and motorsports clients, general representation of a Caribbean-based thoroughbred racing and gaming company, and sales of radio and television broadcast stations.

His real estate industry experience includes corporate, securities and financing work for Interstate General Company L.P. and American Community Properties Trust, two affiliated developers of residential and commercial properties in St. Charles, Maryland, and San Juan, Puerto Rico.

In pro bono service, Mr. Jack advises the Ivymount School, and he co-founded and chaired the Southern Anne Arundel Special Education Support Foundation.

Mr. Jack received his J.D., with highest honors, from George Washington University, National Law Center, in 1986, where he was a member of Order of the Coif and the Law Review. He earned a B.A. from George Washington University in 1983, with a major in international affairs. He is a member of the Society of Corporate Secretaries and Governance Professionals.

From: http://www.cov.com/lawyers/afriedman/biography.html

Andrew H. Friedman, a senior tax partner, focuses on corporate tax matters and transactions, with substantive industry experience in professional sports, e-commerce, and insurance companies and products. He has served as head of the tax group, co-head of the corporate/tax/benefits umbrella group, and the partner in charge of the firm's overall media relations and marketing activities.

Representative clients in professional sports include all four major leagues -- Major League Baseball, National Basketball Association, National Football League, National Hockey League -- as well as the United States Tennis Association, the Arena Football League, and professional sports clubs including the Boston Red Sox. Representative clients in other industries include Clark Enterprises, M Financial Group, MFS Investment Management, Sotheby's, Sun Life Financial, and Yahoo!.

Transactions and matters on which he has been counsel include John Henry's sale of the Florida Marlins baseball club and purchase of the Boston Red Sox and related entities; the establishment of the NFL Network; the establishment of the World Baseball Classic tournament to debut in 2006; the formation of a new regional sports network combining the baseball Orioles and Nationals broadcast rights; the establishment of the U.S. Open Series, a series of tournaments leading up to the U.S. Open in September; Computer Associates' acquisition of Sterling Software; the NFL's expansion to Cleveland and Houston; the financing structures for the stadium in Cleveland and other sports facilities; the NFL and NHL credit facilities; Buffalo Bills v. United States, 31 Fed. Cl 794, 1994; and numerous life insurance, annuity, and mutual fund arrangements and product offerings.

This year, Chambers USA chose Mr. Friedman for its inaugural list of leading sports lawyers in America. Mr. Friedman received a B.A., summa cum laude, as Valedictorian, from Trinity College in 1977 and his J.D., cum laude, from Harvard University in 1980.

Covington & Burling: Sports Leagues and Religious Institutions

From: http://www.cov.com/practices/oid37186/description.html

NATIONAL NONPROFIT

Sports Leagues

For over thirty years, the Firm has been the principal outside counsel for the National Football League, and we have also engaged in substantial work on behalf of the National Basketball Association, the National Hockey League, the North American Soccer League, World Championship Tennis, United States Tennis Association and other major sports interests. Several Firm alumni now serve in highly visible positions in the world of sports, the most prominent being the Commissioner of the NFL. Our lawyers also work for sports-related federations, such as the International Amateur Athletic Federation, International Association of Athletics Federations and International Paralympic Committee.

Religious Institutions

Covington represents numerous religious institutions on a wide rage of matters. Past and present representative clients include the Jewish Publication Society, Catholic Diocese of Richmond, American Jewish Committee, Holy Orthodox Church of North America, Upton Hindu Community Association, Protestant Episcopal Cathedral Foundation, American Bible Society and the Interfaith Center of New York.

From: http://www.cov.com/practices/oid52748/description.html

SPORTS TRANSACTIONS

Covington & Burling's sports law practice is without parallel. For over thirty years, the Firm has been the principal outside counsel for the National Football League, and we have engaged in substantial work on behalf of the National Basketball Association, the National Hockey League, the International Amateur Athletic Federation, the North American Soccer League, World Championship Tennis, and other major sports interests. Several Firm alumni now serve in highly visible positions in the world of sports, the most prominent being the Commissioner of the NFL.

Our representations in the sports field have included not only professional sports leagues, but also individual clubs, apparel manufacturers, stadium authorities, and amateur athletic organizations. With regard to sports-related products, the Firm is heavily involved, in the United States and abroad, in marketing, distribution, licensing, sponsorship, financing, and product liability issues. More generally, our sports-related practice includes litigation, arbitration, transactional work, tax planning, the protection and utilization of intellectual property, as well as labor, antitrust, franchise, legislative and executive compensation matters. Illustrative of the breadth of our practice were our extensive roles in the creation and development of NFL Enterprises, which pioneered the public distribution of game broadcasts by satellite, and the World League of American Football, including all aspects of that European venture's commercial, tax, and intellectual property interests. We also have extensive experience representing professional sports leagues (like the NFL and NHL), amateur sports governing bodies (like the IAAF), and others in arbitration and litigation matters involving contract disputes, competition issues, labor and employment matters, and performance-enhancing drug disputes.

There is no aspect of sports-related legal practice in which Covington & Burling does not have substantial experience.

Links:

DC Sports and Entertainment Commission

http://www.dcsec.com/index.html

Covington & Burling

http://www.cov.com

Vincent & Elkins

http://www.vinson-elkins.com/

http://www.vinson-elkins.com/lawyers/lawyer_detail.asp?H4AttyID=000321664305

Winston & Strawn

http://www.winston.com/WSHome.nsf/pFrame?OpenPage