Appearances of Power

Ruminations Following
The Committee of 100’s December 12, 2005 Christmas Party

I attended a Christmas party they held, Monday December 12, 2005, that was open to the public. Despite receiving no reply to my requests regarding the Nationals Stadium/South Capitol Mall conflict, I received a timely response about this party from Committee of 100’s Barbara Zartman.

Here, I informed the Committee of 100 members by handing out notices about my web site “The Future of South Capitol Street”

Illustration: Barbara Zartman, Perry Belmont mansion

This party was held at a Beaux Arts mansion located in a well to do area on a triangle of land along New Hampshire Avenue a few blocks northeast of DuPont Circle

The Perry Belmont Mansion is one of Washington’s finest examples of Beaux Arts architecture. Designed by French architect Eugene Sanson [started in 1906] and completed in 1909, the house remains today much as it was when originally constructed and still contains many of the Belmonts furniture and objects d’art. Mr. Belmont was the grandson of Commodore Perry who negotiated the 1854 Treaty of Amity, which opened the ports of Japan for commerce. During the sixteen years that Jessie and Perry Belmont, who had served as US Ambassador to Spain, occupied the house, dignitaries from around the world were entertained there. The landmarked house was purchased in 1935 by the Order of the Eastern Star for use as its international headquarters. It serves also as the private residence of the Right Worthy Grand Secretary. The Order’s careful stewardship provides Washington with a remarkable example of its built heritage.

Formerly the Perry Belmont Mansion, it was started in 1906 and completed in 1909, at the then-extravagant cost $1.5 million. Perry and Jessie Belmont built the mansion for the specific purpose of entertaining not only notables of Washington, but also dignitaries from all over the world. The building was only used during the Washington party season (about two months each year) and special events. It was designed by Eugene Sanson, a famous French architect who had designed many grand homes and chateaus in Europe. He was renowned for his use of light and space, and for his beautiful staircases. Long before the acquisition of the building by the General Grand Chapter in 1935, it was a site of elegance, gracious and grand hospitality, of distinguished diplomats, world-renowned guests and romance.

The Belmonts entertained lavishly and had a staff of approximately 34 servants. They used the house from 1909 to 1925. It was then closed and put on the market for sale with the stipulation that it could not be altered for 20 years after purchase. The mansion stood empty and unused until 1935, when the General Grand Chapter purchased it. Mr. Belmont, being a Mason and happy to be selling it to someone who would take care of it, sold it to The General Grand Chapter for $100,000. As part of our agreement with Mr. Belmont, The General Grand Chapter law states the Right Worthy Grand Secretary must live in the Temple. So the building is still a working private residence as well as our headquarters. Many furnishings, including several Tiffany vases, 37 oil paintings, Louis the 14th and 15th furniture, china and oriental rugs were included with the purchase of the Temple and are still on display for our members and their guests to enjoy on tours. Chandeliers throughout are gold gilt and hung with hand-carved rock crystal drops – some with amethyst as well. There are eleven fireplaces, most with hand-carved marble mantles. All the marble in the house was brought from Italy, all the wood from Germany and all the metal fixtures from France.

That mansion, and Temple, is the Washington, D.C. International Headquarters of the Order of the Eastern Star: an organization of female relatives of Masons, and is adorned in three places with lit images of a Masonic pentagram – 5 pointed with 2 top points and 1 bottom point akin to that largely formed by the L’Enfant street grid near and north of the White House -- framed with the letters A L F A T. Note that a pentagram is identical in shape to the five-pointed star that is seen on numerous flags; it is called a pentagram because of its orientation.

The Order of the Eastern Star

This raised my eyebrows. Inside in the lobby, I would ask: “this sounds like secret societies” and receive the response: “no, rather societies with secrets.” OK. We will probably not know what’s being said inside, as true with inside about anything else; but the Order’s name and its pentagrams are clearly on display outside.

Rather, the secret is where and how any group extends its influence in the world secretively, seen but unseen. This location for the Committee of 100’s Christmas party suggests some connection or connections between the Committee of 100 and temporally organized (institutional) speculative Masonry. It’s unknown to this blogger if membership in such organized Masonry is mandatory for membership within the Committee of 100, or the extent or any details of any such connections and/or influence. It could suggest that the Committee of 100 is controlled by temporally organized speculative Masonry. In any event, since this is an order of wives and daughters of such Masons, it may be that this includes wives and daughters of such Masons who are members of the Committee of 100.

Inside, and upstairs around a buffet table, I was able to distribute copies of the home page of my South Capitol Street web site with its table of contents beneath the pair of stamps created to “commemorate” the radical changes to the South Capitol gateway planning at
http://www.HighwaysAndCommunities.com/southcapitolstreet

Illustration: un-official 'commemoration'
of official South Capitol Street Gateway planning: 1997-2005

There, within this mansion of marble, around a table filled with good food and alcohol, I met a cross section of relatively tight lipped people seeming constrained by some invisible force. None of the above dozens of Committee of 100 members that I met at this Christmas party mentioned the Committee of 100’s opposition to Extending the Legacy, such as the 1996 letter to President Clinton.

It was as if these people knew that the Committee of 100 took a position that they were ashamed of. And from what I have a feeling, was a position achieved not through open discussion or spontaneous acclamation.

Nor is it a position touted on their web site. I have yet to find even a mention.

Perhaps this was some Committee of 100 rule against members discussing certain things publicly?

Or perhaps some other force, perhaps responsible for the general lack of public discussion and debate.

Perhaps that was something akin to at least 2 out of the three following things about the elections to the Order of the Eastern Star, written by Jessie M. Ayers, a Past Grand Worthy Matron, and a member of Miriam Chapter No. 4, Order of the Eastern Star, Georgiana Thomas Grand Chapter, Jurisdiction of the District of Columbia, who served as Grand Worthy matron in 1989, and was Grand Historian of the Georgiana Thomas Grand Chapter from 1971-1991:

Election to the degrees must be unanimous, without debate, and secret. [emphasis added]

Such reminds me a bit of experiences in our representative democracy, such as this with the Alexandria City Council and this at the U.S. National Capital Planning Commission with the sell out of the Washington Street Urban Deck.

Illustration: Masonic Tower- highest structure in Alexandria, Virginia

Washington, D.C.’s Union Station

To me, disappointment in official planning is symbolized with the dividing line at the rear of Washington, D.C.’s Union Station.

In front it is beautiful. To the rear it is ugly and divisive.

Why must that remain so?

Why not spread the monumental core beauty to do something about those open railyards?

Frederic Delano’s organizations were ostensibly set up to advance the monumental planning of Washington DC. for reasons readily apparent.

Though embarking upon that within and beyond the scope of the McMillan Commission, within with the Jefferson Memorial and beyond with the East Capitol Mall, these organizations would arguably assume another role: not that of extending the legacy, but rather truncating it for reasons other than those publicized. Both the East Capitol Mall – proposed from the late 1920s until the late 1950s or early 1960s -- and the concurrent era highway plans would be aborted to save residential neighborhoods- as testified by the still existing neighborhoods preserved between Constitution and Independence Avenues east of the Capitol, or along the routes of the un-built 1955 route for the Inner Loop. Yet these organizations would also reverse course when these reasons were not present, resting upon history telling that would be purposely vague history- much like the "reporting" on Extending the Legacy .

Building the Jefferson Memorial would effectively complete the City Beautiful of the McMillan Commission planning, while new Malls along East and South Capitol would extend it.

Not building the East Capitol Mall would preserve neighborhoods of 1000s of dwellings.

Not building the South Capitol Mall would serve to preserve a single building along South Capitol Street- the St Vincent de Paul Roman Catholic at the intersection with M Street. It would also dubiously “preserve” neighborhoods nearby those nearby which are nonetheless shown removed and replaced with denser development.

Highway planning greatly reduced impacts over the years, thereby minimizing neighborhood savings while sacrificing their potential traffic effectiveness for a funds transfer to sped WMATA construction by a few months, with no compensation of increased capacity- e.g. 4 track rather then only 2 track segments, since the WMATA system was planned to coexist with the freeways.

Neighborhood preservation was served in DC by replacing the 1959 plan with the 1962 plan, and the 1965 and later plans for the cross town I-66 K Street Tunnel.

Neighborhood preservation was not necessarily served in Bethesda MD with canceling the NW freeway given that most of downtown Bethesda was torn down and replaced with denser transit oriented development.

By 1971, the freeway system design reduced displacement from perhaps 20,000 to roughly 1,100, mainly for the segment connecting the Center Leg/ 3rd Street Tunnel (600+), plus 172 for the northern segment of the East Leg, and 148 for the westerly connection to the K Street Tunnel. (As I see it, the 600+ figure is reducible to roughly 34 with superior geometry). For the North Central Freeway, this was a drop from 2,300-4,000 of the 1963-64 study, to 59 for the I-95 PEPCO route considered in 1971 and 1973.

The popularization of the idea of simply canceling the Washington, D.C. freeway system to further fund WMATA came largely in response to the planning that came after the effective cancellation of the Northwest Freeway.

1959

1962

1964

The Kennedy Administration’s basic concept was of a B&O “Y” route North Central – Northeast Freeway employing DC’s sole northern radial industrial transportation corridor conveniently located about midway between the Potomac River and Maryland’s eastern Beltway, as a replacement for the 3 separate freeways of the 1959 plan; Kennedy's plan was politically undermined by a planning report released October 1964 with NCF routes on an upwards of 37 possible alignments, NONE tightly along the railroad as the Kennedy Administration prescribed; instead a “recommended route” -- #11 “Railroad East- Sligo – with its longer less direct deviation through TP MD destroying 471 houses, would poison public sentiment, and despite the subsequent 1966 report for B&O low level route, was continually brought up as being officially preferred by government officials until the late 1960s as cheaper. Such actions fueled such strictly anti freeway attitudes popularizing the idea of cancelling the highway in order to transfer their funds to mass transit projects, neglecting that the 1960s planning included both freeways and the WMATA rail system, that the officially proposed freeway system underwent significant design to reduce impacts- most significantly with cross town I-66 replacing the open trench and elevated along Florida Avenues and between U and T Streets with the K Street Tunnel espoused by NCPC’s Elizabeth Rowe before opposing it and all the other un-built proposed freeways following the 1973 OPEC oil embargo with a perspective strictly equating auto use with petro use, leading to the abandonment of the private auto by the 1990s.

Ignoring design changes in favor of emotional pitches became sufficiently dominant to get people within Washington, D.C. to allow their freeway funds to be transferred for mass transit segments outside the District and beyond the Beltway while becoming so excited about “transit” to thus not ask why the WMATA Red line through a full tunnel in NW, would be built with only a few hundred feet of such, being built relatively cheaply by being on the surface or elevated upon a berm, maintaining and expanding the existing railroad – established cir. 1863 – with no talk of lowering this railroad and covering at least some portions, nor even finishing this railroad’s concrete wall – required by this transit line’s added width to the railroad – in the Takoma DC area. This sort of distraction would apparently surface to have rewarded the local activists with a lack of any formal guarantee for the green space preservation at the Takoma WMATA station, with apparently no one objecting to the Committee of 100’s transfer of DC freeway funds away rather then to additional transit capacity such as more 4 track segments.

This strict mentality here results in a Washington, D.C. with no grade separated vehicular highway connection from the general north within the entire Capital Beltway axis from Route 50 at 3 o’clock, counter clock wise and into Virginia to the GW Parkway and to I-66 at 9 o’clock, neither allowing trucks, which are allowed on I-395 at 7 o’clock. This shifts traffic to the SE Maryland portion of the Capital Beltway, including its Woodrow Wilson Bridge crossing of the Potomac River. It likewise shifts traffic to I-295 through the least affluent areas of D.C., eventually running alongside the Anacostia River. It leaves NE bisected by a significant surface railway.Not building the “Y” route North Central Freeway undermines national security.

In conjunction with the lagging interest of the planning organizations at covering the Anacostia Freeway, it serves as a textbook example of environmental racism.

Indeed, such is so with the 2 radials of the WMATA Red Line, with its NW segment fully tunneled, and with its NE segment upon a surface railroad.

With both the Committee of 100 and the USNCPC were touted as advancing the classical planning of the L’Enfant and McMillan commission planning, what thus compelled the Committee of 100 to abandon its support of reasonable highway design concepts for greatly minimizing footprint needs, such as building inside the Beltway Virginia I-66 via the existing Rote 50 corridor rebuild to full freeway specifications, and building the DC Center Leg via cut and cover tunnels beneath 2nd and 3rd Streets, in favor of schemes to have all vehicular traffic pass by residential driveways by making do with the surface streets (wasting times and increasing vehicular-pedestrian conflicts yet passed off as being pedestrian friendly), such as what NCPC did in 1968 with its outright cancellation of the NC/NE Freeway.

Interstate Traffic from the North

With respect to interstate traffic moving into the metropolitan area from the north on I-70S and I-95, vehicles with destinations beyond the District clearly should be diverted around the beltway. Interstate traffic with destinations within the District has options that are obviously as satisfactory as such traffic finds in any metropolitan system. The interstate system -- as a city to city system -- gives no assurance of freeway access to the heart of the central city. Both I-70S and I-95 traffic can move down the same arterial street network used by the commuters, and presumably a large part of this interstate traffic will be at non-peak hours.

I-95 traffic can be channeled over a short jog on the beltway to the Baltimore Washington Parkway for a penetration into the District over that route. Three options would be provided for this interstate traffic with downtown destinations -- via Kenilworth Freeway, via the proposed new Anacostia Parkway, and via New York Avenue (which is being improved as a major entrance into the Nation's capital from the east). Additional capacities to handle this I-95 traffic, of course, will of course be needed on the beltway and the Baltimore Washington Parkway. (An alternative would be a new highway in Maryland that would bring I-95 directly into the Baltimore-Washington Parkway at or near the Kenilworth interchange.)

The Commission believes that these facilities can adequately provide for interstate traffic from the north with central area destinations. The construction of a freeway to the north (in addition to the string of major surface streets) in order to accommodate interstate traffic would simply open up another arterial gateway for the suburban commuter. This the Commission rejects as both unnecessary and undesirable. (pp. 31-32)

It certainly served a more emotional rather then logical agenda, as a useful distraction from growing budgets for war, and does so continually the ECTC morphed into a NCTC which held national conferences on the problems of urban freeways and automobiles in general 1969-1973, disbanding with Maryland’s July 16, 1973 cancellation of the PEPCO I-95 connector effectively ending anticipation of a B&O route within D.C., as if the oil crisis was meaningless for a group set up with an expanded mission. Hence, the politics of D.C.’s freeways serves matters have little or nothing to do with those included in slogans.

And it ensures that no highway would not only through Archibold-Glover Park alongside Georgetown University, or pointing at at with a Three Sisters Bridge, but that they would not go anywhere near Catholic University of America, nor near or through the property of the Order of the Eastern Star home on New Hampshire Avenue just northeast of the B&O railroad near the Maryland line.

The I-395 Center Leg would be truncated alongside Georgetown University Law Center.

Washington, D.C. Freeway System: 1970s

Illustration: From Scott Kozel's www.roadstothefuture.com

http://www.roadstothefuture.com/DC_Interstate_Map.html

Illustrations: I-95 routes

Washington, D.C. remains divided by surface rail- interest lags in covering railroad, though sometimes proposed for are near and south of Michigan Avenue idea was only considered for area to north alongside CUA in the 1966 NCF supplementary study, disappearing from the 1971 plan.

That something is powerful enough to pull the strings with regards to Extending the Legacy is evident not only with how the South Mall was unreported through consistent widespread mis-wording -- always a boulevard or gateway but not explicitly a greenway-- but also with the disappearance of another one of its projected extensions of the legacy with a depressing and coving of the rail yards emanating northward from behind Union Station; according to Richard Layman, this idea was promoted by NCPC consultant Tony Simon, AICP; it would be pulled.

Who ordered its removal?

Apparently someone at the top of the pyramid detests the shape of a comet poised at the “head” of the entity represented by the street grid?



http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2008/02/grand-arc-mall-headpiece-union-station.html

It does appear that they will cover the area with buildings- whatever it takes to mute the monumental thrust of the Union Station - Grand Arc axis.

Considering the St Vincent de Paul Roman Catholic Church’s influence and the dynamics of the South Capitol Mall’s across the board non-reporting, I wonder about this plausible Vatican-Masonic alliance at play in this drama, with a Committee of 100 controlled/constrained by some entity of organized Masonry, which in turn is controlled by some entity from the Roman Catholic Church?

At South Capitol and M Streets SE

They are linked- explaining alliance dynamics of a St. Vincent de Paul Church that effectively blocked the South Capitol Mall as a Roman Catholic Church, being conceivably defended at all costs not only by the archdiocese of Washington and the Vatican, but also Masonry regarding any decisions as to its future.


Both are undeniably long involved in the planning of Washington, D.C., marked by such writings as “Rulers of Evil” by Tupper Saussy, and “The Secret Architecture of Our Nation’s Capital: The Masons and the Building of Washington, D.C.", by David Ovason

Both are undeniably sufficiently big to pull this off, as something big influenced the media coverage, ordering its reporting to avoid words as greenway, linear park, promenade or mall, but rather boulevard, and with the stadium, pushed through via the Jesuit connected head of D.C.’s Sports and Entertainment Commission with that law firm since 1981 located at 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, Covington and Burling.


Given the Masonic order’s various uses of the compass and square – architectural tools – one can reasonably ask what can be said that has been mainly left unsaid about Masonic order influence in Washington D.C. and area planning today? It’s established that those belonging to Masonic orders have contributed significantly with the planning, most notably George Washington, and U.S. Senator McMillan who gave his name to the McMillan Commission, which extended the National Mall westward past the Washington Monument via new landfill for 500 feet giving us the Reflecting Pool and the Lincoln Memorial.

So what about the “Committee of 100 on the Federal City” a private organization, along with the U.S. National Capitol Planning Commission?

Both were founded by Frederic A. Delano, member of the first board of the Federal Reserve, uncle to 32nd U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and brother in law (by being married to sisters from the same family) to Ed Burling, a Chicago railroad industry firm, who came to Washington, D.C. to join Georgetown Law professor, ex- U.S. Congressman Frank Harry Covington, to found Covington & Burling.

Of this Frederic Delano family, these three entities have played their significant role in the planning of Washington, D.C., both individually and in concert- the latter marked by numerous appearances of an alliance including the two private entities: the Committee of 100 and Covington & Burling, and often including the Jesuit Order run Georgetown University Law Center (Law School).

Was perhaps the South Capitol Mall an issue discussed here with C. Fred Kleinknecht’s meeting with the Vatican?

http://www.srmason-sj.org/web/journal-files/Issues/nov03/kleinknecht.htm

“Similarly, Fred took unprecedented steps to heal misunderstandings between Freemasonry and the Roman Catholic Church. Through personal conferences with high Vatican officials in Rome and in Washington, he set the cornerstone for building cordial relations between the two great institutions."

C. Fred Kleinknecht was Sovereign Grand Commander of the Southern Jurisdiction of the U.S. for 18 years; he retired in 2003. A book "Valley of the Craftsman" about Masons, including the time of Kleinknecht's service, has a chapter titled PILLARS OF CHARITY 243 Extending the Legacy 1985-2001.
http://www.ksa-mcalesterok.com/product_info.php?cPath=41_71&products_id=98

NCPC 2001 "Memorials and Museums"

2001 was the year of the final appearance in an U.S. NCPC publication of the full South Capitol Mall concept that had been championed by the 1990s "Extending the Legacy"program.

Cover: U.S. NCPC's 1997
"Extending the Legacy: Planning America's Capital for the 21st Century"
with un-named South Capitol Mall

Extending the Legacy South Capitol Mall
Angled Roadways

What they are doing instead

Rather then move this church 250 feet east

Relocated St Vincent de Paul Church next to South Capitol Mall

Washington, D.C.'s oldest Jewish Synagogue moved several blocks in 1969 to accommodate WMATA subway construction
and placed next to I-395

NCPC 2001 "Memorials and Museums"
close up
showing church like building suggestive of the idea of a few hundred foot relocation of St Vincent de Paul Church

Alas the Roman Catholic Church is nowhere near as civic-minded.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/The_Unhived_Mind_II/index.php?showtopic=999

Kleinknecht wrote the forward to David Ovason's “The Secret Architecture of Our Nation’s Capital: The Masons and the Building of Washington, D.C.”

“As above, so below.” These words, attributed to Hermes Trismegistus, lie at the heart of the Western esoteric tradition. In brief, they mean that the universe and all it contains is reflected in some manner not only on Earth, but also in man ad his works. The chief quest of all ages has been man’s attempt to understand the mystery of existence and to find his place in it. He keenly observed the movement of the stars, as we read in Genesis 1:14, “for signs, and for seasons.” Not only have the stars guided the traveler on the earth and seas, but their constellations are archetypes that have been viewed as guides for the lives of men and nations.

In this fascinating and well-researched book, David Ovason presents the remarkable thesis that Washington, D.C., is a city of the stars. He demonstrates that there are over 30 zodiacs in the city, and that the majority of them are orientated in a meaningful way. Even more astonishing is to learn that these zodiacs were designed to point to the actual heavens- this marrying the Capital City with the stars. This discovery parallels the recent finding in Egypt that the three Great Pyramids correspond with the three stars in Orion’s belt, while the Nile River occupies the same relative position as the Milky Way. [emphasis added] It is still debated whether this was intentional, yet the correlation is undeniable. Similarly, the assignment, position and meaning of Washington, D.C.’s zodiacs bespeak a relationship between heaven and earth.

Recent scholarship, such as Steven C. Bullock’s Revolutionary Brotherhood: Freemasonry and the Transformation of the American Social Order, 1730-1840 (University of North Carolina Press, 1996), demonstrates the undeniable influence Freemasonry exerted on the American system of government and lifestyle. Aware of these influences, David Ovalson discovered what may be Masonic influences in the architecture and the layout of the city. He does not assert that all of his correspondences or discovered secrets were laid down by Masons, but there is some support for his argument in documents preserved by Masons, but there is support for his arguments preserved in the Achieves and Library of the Supreme Council, 33^rd degree, Southern Jurisdiction. As in other Scottish Rite Blue Lodge (“Symbolic” or “Craft”) rituals, Albert Pike’s Book of the Lodge contains recommendations for decorating the lodge ceilings with constellations and planets. The star map, which is painted on the ceiling, is replete with Masonic symbolism that was influenced by French designs in the early 19^th century.

The astonishing thing is that Pike’s ceiling design reflects precisely the same mysteries observed by David Ovason in this book. These mysteries relate to the constellation Virgo. Pike’s map is entirely schematic- which is to say that it does not reflect the actual position of the stars in the heavens. (Leo could in no way be represented as following Ursa Majoris, for example). Even so, Pike is very clear in allocating his symbolic placing of planets and stars. For example he places the full Moon between the constellations Scorpio and Virgo. This means that the full Moon between the constellations Libra, and the star Spica is just above the lunar crescent.

What does that mean to us? The star Spica happens to be the one that David Ovalson has shown to be the symbolically linked with both Washington, D.C. and the United States as a whole. As the reader will learn, Ovason also suggests that this star may be the origin of the five-pointed star that adorns the American flag. He also suggests that Spica may have been the origin of the Blazing (or Flaming) Star of Freemasonry.

Certainly, it would be far fetched to draw too many conclusions for a schematic map, but it is evident that Pike visualized his star map as marking the setting of Virgi, along with the constellation of Bootes, to the north. This is precisely the cosmic setting that David Ovason suggests represents the secret star plan of Washington, D.C.. While Pike engineered a schematic time for his star map, Ovalson shows that it relates to a number of days centering upon August 10 of each year. The significance of this and other “mysteries” is fully explored in this work. In view of the meanings that may be traced in Albert Pike’s map, we can only wonder if he observed the same correspondences of the city, noted by Ovalson, yet for reasons of his own never divulged them.

In any case, David Ovason presents us with a fascinating work that will be sure to captivate and entertain readers interested in architecture, esotericism, Freemasonry, and our nation’s capital. His thesis may be controversial, but it is well thought out and presented.

Ovason says some interesting things about the constellation map with regards to the celestial triangle of the Capitol, the White Hose and the Washington Monument, and hence, the Federal Triangle:

The interesting thing is that this stellar triangle was evidently intended to remain invisible. It is a stellar figure that we know is there, yet which remains hidden from our sight. Below on the earth, its equivalent form, the Federal Triangle, is plainly visible, with Pennsylvania Avenue as its longest side. Since the Constitution Avenue line of the Federal Triangle represents the ecliptic, the implication is that Pennsylvania Avenue was intended by L’Enfant and Ellicott as a sacred route, with its celestial equivalent as invisible pathway in the skies.

Perhaps it is clear now why the symbol makers and architects of Washington, D.C. concentrated their efforts on zodiacal symbols which reflect so deeply the arcane nature of the stellar Virgin? Perhaps it is clear now why the idea of an earthly triangle – encapsulated in the phrase Federal Triangle – should reflect this stellar form on the earth plane?

From the very beginning, the city was intended to celebrate the mystery of Virgo – of the Egyptian Isis, the Grecian Ceres and the Christian Virgin. This truth – and this truth alone – explains the structure of the city, and the enormous power of its stellar symbolism. Washington, D.C., is far more then a city of zodiacs – it’s a city which was built to celebrate a massive cosmic symbolism, expressed in stars. Its the main buildings – Capitol, White House and Washington Monument – mark on the Earth the annual renewal of that magical pyrotechnic display in the skys, which occurs on the days around August 10. (page 344)

From whatever direction one approaches the history of Washington, D.C., the processional avenue of L’Enfant seems always to find its way into the story, and the tale is usually linked with Masons. If we glance at the history of the capital from the viewpoint of, say, sculpture, we find a seamless fabric which joins together generations of artists through almost two centuries. And, this is a fabric woven in the vicinity of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Today, the Old Post Office is set back from Pennsylvania Avenue, oriented to the squares drawn on the original map along D Street, as though some planner had forgotten about what L’Enfant had indicated on his map. Across the road is the beaux arts building that once housed the most influential newspapers in the city, the Washington Evening Star, its façade still looking down onto the statute of Benjamin Franklin, who occupies the triangular-shaped declivity in Pennsylvania Avenue. It is entirely fitting that this building, so intimately linked with a setting star, should look onto one of the most influential of early American Masons, one who had knowledge of the stars and was a keen astronomer. The sculpture, commissioned of Jacques Jouvenal as a gift to the city by the newspaper proprietor Stilson Hutchins, was designed to look onto Pennsylvania Avenue from 10^th Street [note. It sits on the south-eastern corner of Pennsylvania Avenue and 12^th Street], because in those days the avenue was flanked by printers and newspapers: within a stones throw was the largest litho printer in the United States. Now the printers and newspaper have fled in the wake of threatened and actual development, leaving Franklin, displaced from his original symbolism, raising his right hand as though astonished in their disappearance. Nonetheless, there seems to be a destiny even in accidents, and this placing of a Mason on one side, and a building named after an evening star, is propitious.

The Evening Star departed its famous building in 1955, leaving only its stellar name in metallic and lapidary inscriptions overlooking the Pennsylvania frontage. The reception hall of the newspaper has been revamped in modern times, but it is possible that a meaningful symbolism has survived from earlier days. In its marble floor is a huge sunburst, or starburst pattern. The five splendid radiants throw their beams out toward this magical avenue, as though he were part of the profound secret of Washington, D.C. [emphasis added] (pp 311-312)

Does the state of Franklin, on its pedestal below the campanile, hold up its hand in amazement of this solar wonder? (page 344)

This is the same Benjamin Franklin statute that faces diagonally across the intersection of Pennsylvania Avenue NW and 12^th Street NW to the Covington & Burling building at 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. Ovason discusses The Evening Star building that sits to Ben’s right (3’o clock); but he altogether ignores the identity of that which he faces.

If one were to draw a line from the door of the lobby of The Evening Star to this Franklin statute, its mirror line goes towards the northeast rear corner of this Covington & Burling building. His upheld hand points into this building, as do his eyes.

From my perspective of being perhaps the only person writing about the betrayal of the South Capitol Mall, this juxtaposition is quite ironic, given the Covington & Burling law firm’s role in the Nationals stadium deal since at least as early as 2002, on behalf of Major League Baseball in negotiations with lawyers representing the DC Sports and Entertainment Commission and its Chairman, Mark Touhey.

Definitely buy and read “The Secret Architecture of Our Nation’s Capital: The Masons and the Building of Washington, D.C.”

Video of intersection from Save the Capital City

Committee of 100 Opposed 'Extending the Legacy'

A lack of news accounts about 1990s opposition to the South Capitol Mall did not mean that such did not exist, as evidenced by Joseph Passonneau’s South Capitol Street proposal which he flashed during his August 2000 slide show lecture at the National Building Museum, and his organizational connections, from which an opposition appeared more then 6 years before the November 2002 stadium study with the Nationals Stadium site alongside South Capitol Street.

This opposition surfaced in early 1996 in a not very well reported opposition to U.S. National Capital Planning Commission's Extending the Legacy program (this reporting also not mentioning the South Capitol Mall), via a letter sent to U.S. President Clinton by the private planning group the Committee of 100 on the Federal City (of which Joseph Passonneau is listed as a member). A review of news sources reveals only two short articles in The Washington Times in March 1996, which fail to indicate any specific complaints, (I need to find the full text of this letter). Reportedly, this letter calls Extending the Legacy as

"loopy" … "a collection of geometric fantasies" … "outdated, top-down, Olympian approach to planning of the nation's capital" …

Committee of 100 minutes 1995
Gelman Library (GW University) Special Collections

Mr McGrath reported that Mr Cooper has drafted a letter to President Clinton expressing the Committee’s concern about his lending his prestige of his office to the Monumental Core Planning effort. Rather then simply objecting to the President’s involvement, the letter suggests a better use of his authority. It recommends that the President form a commission to assess the whole planning process in the city and the region and make recommendations for appropriate legislative and administrative changes. Others are currently reviewing the draft and it will be sent out soon. Mr. Cooper recommended that Mr. McGrath’s 1992 report on planning be attached to the letter. Ms. McCarthy noted that these same issues and concerns need to be conveyed to Speaker Gingrich

As reported here:

Critics claim capital idea isn't grounded in reality

Insight on the News, May 6, 1996 by Brian Blomquist, Betsy Pisik

President Clinton has apploauded a federal planning commission's futuristic vision for Washington, but local planners consider it a `loopy' and untenable blueprint for the nation's capital.

Drafted by the National Capital Planning Commission at a cost of $1.7 million, a blueprint to revitalize the nation's capital has been praised by some and damned by others. But one thing is certain: No one has said where the city will find the billions of dollars to pay for the razing of highways, bridges and entire neighborhoods.

The planning commission's vision is contained in a 28-page booklet, replete with illustrations depicting a space-age shuttle flying over the city and a saucer-shaped, domed entertainment and recreational facility in place of RFK Stadium. "I fear it's a bunch of people in a sandbox dredging up nice ideas when the city is on the verge of bankruptcy, can't provide services and doesn't have a budget," says Richard Longstreth, who teaches architectural and urban history at George Washington University in the city and is vice chairman of the American Society of Architectural Historians.

But President Clinton recently met with some of the 12 members of the commission -- including Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, Federal Reserve Board nominee Alice Rivlin, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, D.C. congressional Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton and Mayor Marion Barry -- for 30 minutes in the Oval Office and later was enthusiastic about the plan.

"The president is, of course, very concerned about the future of the District of Columbia, and the plans are not only important historically, but they could have a significant impact on the district economy," says White House spokeswoman Mary Ellen Glynn.

According to commission spokesman David Julyan, the plan does three things for Washington: "It evens out economic development by locating future museums, memorials and other public buildings in neglected parts of the city. It reclaims the waterfront and gives it back to the people. Finally, it expands public transit to accommodate the 21st century."

The plan does not specify how officials would expand the financially strapped Metro bus and rail system or other public transportation, although it does envision use of the Potomac and Anacostia rivers as "highways." But Julyan says the plan addresses the economic engines that drive the capital -- the federal government and tourism. He also believes "it can play an important role in restoring the fiscal security and public image of Washington."

Commission Deputy Director Robert Gresham admits that the blueprint is purposely vague, as were the previous plans that shaped the city: the 200-year-old L'Enfant plan, which mapped the city, and the McMillan Commission plan of 1901, which created the 5,000acre monumental core. "We think it provides a framework that will serve as a guide for future development when the time is ripe," says Gresham.

For the plan to become reality, however, a great many elements must fall into place. City officials would have to support it, and right now they are not looking that far into the future. The Committee of 100 on the Federal City -- a volunteer organization of local planners, urban architects and historians that actually counts 175 members -- warned Clinton in December not to associate himself with the planning commission's vision.

"We are concerned that your presence will lend support to an outdated, top-down, Olympian approach to the planning of the Nation's Capital," said the committee's letter to the president, signed by committee chairman Dorn C. McGrath Jr., director of the Institute for Urban Development Research at George Washington. Critics argue that the blueprint ignores more realistic goals set by district government planners and tramples on dozens of neighborhood-development guidelines adopted by historic-preservation groups.

Contrast that opposition with their use of the inner cover fold (top) out from Extending the Legacy (which shows the SCM), and its motto:

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 designation, natural beauty and overall livability.

MISSION STATEMENT For eighty years, the Committee of 100 has advocated responsible planning and land use in Washington, D.C. Our work is guided by the values inherited from the L'Enfant Plan and McMillan Commission, which give Washington its historic distinction and natural beauty, while responding to the special challenges of 21st century development. We pursue these goals through public education, research and civic action; and we celebrate the city's unique role as both the home of the District's citizens and the capital of our nation.

http://www.committeeof100.net

With the L’Enfant Plan establishing the National Mall west of the Capitol to the Washington Monument, and the McMillan Commission establishing its western extension to the Lincoln Memorial, one would presume that the Committee of 100 would naturally support the Extending the Legacy plan of an extension south of the Capitol, along a widened South Capitol corridor- especially with the illustration (above) from Extending the Legacy on the Committee of 100 home page (since excluded) which clearly shows the South Capitol Mall.

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

THE COMMITTEE OF 100 ON THE FEDERAL CITY
Its History and Its Service to the Nation's Capital
Richard Striner Ph. D

(excerpt)

The Committee of 100 on the Federal City was founded in 1923 to act as a force of conscience in the evolution of the nation's capital city. It was formed to sustain and to safeguard the fundamental values derived from the tradition of the L'Enfant Plan and the McMillan Commission -- that give the nation's capital so much of its distinction, its beauty, and its grace as a community.

The Committee began in an age that sought to revive and extend the original planning ideals for Washington, D.C. Influenced by the “City Beautiful” movement, by resurgent architectural classicism, by the conservationist ethic, and by various urban reform movements inspired by the early 20th-century muckrakers, planners sought to make the nation's capital the living embodiment of their ideals. The creation in 1901 of the McMillan Commission led to the articulation of 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 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 1910 Height of Buildings Act, and the Washington Zoning Ordinance of 1920. These eventful years comprised the background to the establishment of the Committee of 100.

Another essential aspect of the Committee's founding was the widespread concern 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. The scope of planning concerns expanded to address D.C.’s overcrowded schools, dismal alley housing conditions, and environmentally damaged natural lands under threat of being lost to development.

When Frederic A. Delano was asked in 1922 to become chairman 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.” The American Civic Association, with 75 chapters throughout the U.S. focused towards the improvement of the national capital, gave the Committee a level of national support that no other city could claim.

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. But the Committee of 100 had advocated more than just an agency for parkland acquisition, recommending also that broad planning powers be vested in such an agency. It was the Committee's continued advocacy of this concept that prompted the creation of the National Capital Park and Planning Commission (NCPPC) in 1926.

Frederic A. Delano, who was chairman of the Committee of 100 from 1923 to 1944, served concurrently as chairman of NCPPC through most of its formative years. Delano pioneered major planning efforts, most notably a comprehensive plan for parks, parkways and recreational facilities for Washington and environs. Delano’s work led to the acquisition of new parkland in Washington, D.C. and the creation of 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....

South Capitol Mall Sell Out via Frederic Delano's 'Family'

The Non-Informative "E" Groups

Non Responsive Washington, D.C. "E" Groups
Like Cadavers

Many within Washington, D.C.'s "E" groups were contacted about the South Capitol Mall issue by yours truly, such as following the stadium announcement in late 2004, the creation of my initial web site in 2005, and of my blog in spring 2006.

Yet not a single one could even do as little as add a link nor a mention to their membership about what was going on.

Why might that be?

The Non-Informative "E" Groups

Adopted from my 2005-2006
"The Future South Capitol Street Gateway" web site

How well-informed is the U.S. public?

And what about the private groups?

The "Committee of 100 on the Federal City"

A lack of consciousness of this planning substitution is sadly apparent with groups that could be reasonably expected to promote and protect the monumental green way concept for South Capitol, such as such that display the aerial illustration from 1997 "Extending the Legacy" on their web site's introduction page: the Washington, D.C. based "Committee of 100 on the Federal City" -- web site http://www.committeeof100.net - juxtaposed with their motto:

....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.

Illustration from 'Extending the Legacy" adopted for the Committee of 100 web site www.committeeof100.net

By showing an illustration showing the "Legacy" green way, and by juxtaposing it with a motto referring to the L' Enfant and McMillan plans, the former establishing the Mall, the latter extending it westerly and south easterly, one could reasonably infer that the Committee of 100 endorses this basic concept, particularly in the absence of any published statements to the contrary. Hence, would not such a group express a strong concern about this monumental planning substitution, perhaps some discussion and debate, and report upon it to their members and to the public?

Nonetheless, while their web site does not acknowledge the monumental nature of this planning substitution, it is profuse with praise in the form of awards for those involved with the subsequent planning, including D.C. Office of Planning Director Andrew Altman and D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams, and Joseph Passonneau, of Passonneau and Associates, in Washington, D.C.

http://www.passonneau.com

"for outstanding leadership in planning the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative, to unify waterfront areas with a mix of commercial, residential, recreational, and open space uses."

Cover: May/June 2002 Newsletter

For Joseph Passonneau they award their "2002 Vision Award" -- juxtaposed with the ariel from "Legacy" -- with the words:

The Committee of 100 on the Federal City takes great pleasure in awarding Joseph Passonneau the first Committee of 100 Vision award for his superb and long standing work as an architect, planner, transportation designer, and publisher in the Nation's Capital.

The first Vision Award was awarded Joseph Passonneau, Committee of 100 member and nationally known architect, planner and writer.

The Award commends unique developments and plans in the District that show sensitivity to communities, preservation of or creative adaptation to historic elements, excellence in design, good use of public space or enhancement of the district's natural features.

May/June 2002 Newsletter, the Committee of 100 on the Federal City PDF

Cover: May/June 2002 Newsletter upper right

Un-mentioned is the stark difference between Passonneau's vision and that conveyed by the juxtaposed 1997 NCPC illustration.

Whereas the illustration includes a South Capital Street green way extending between Half Streets SW and SE, Passonneau's vision is for a South Capitol Street along its existing 130' row, without the underpass at M Street, (both include massive new real estate development), as indicated by his work as the rendering (at right) that he flashed during slide show/lecture at the National Building Museum in August, 2000.

Passonneau's vision for South Capitol Street

Committee of 100, why juxtapose Passonneau's name with an illustration of the plan he opposes, rather then one of what he supports?

Passonneau acknowledged his support for major elements of the post 1997 South Capitol related planning when questioned about them during the Q&A period of his March 21, 2005 National Building Museum lecture Washington Through Two Centuries, particularly his position against the 1997 NCPC concept for a South Capitol Street green way, his position favoring constructing massive new real estate development projects before constructing a new tunnel along this corridor.

According to Passonneau, for South Capitol Street, a "green way would wreck the mall". Sidestepping the issue of making infrastructure projects more difficult and expensive by stating that "as an engineer, anything was possible". Possible sure. But how much more difficult and expensive to construct? And with what comparisons of the advantages of some real estate development occurring a few years earlier?

Passonneau has written about the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative and has produced a useful set of drawings showing the historical evolving Washington, D.C., including the National Mall's westward extension and its creation of the Reflecting Pool and the Lincoln Memorial area. He has written articles and books.

Nonetheless, Passonneau's stated stance that a South Capitol Street "green way would wreck the Mall", nor any other such opinion against the Legacy green-way/promenade/esplanade/extension of the National Mall/continuous 3rd Century Mall concept for South Capitol, does not appear in his published writings. [at least those made publically].

Passonneau's book Washington Through Two Centuries: A History in Maps and Images makes only scant reference to the NCPC "Legacy" plan, mainly with a single small scale plan view of the general area at page 277 with regard to its proposed railroad relocation, without even mentioning this planning substitution.

Passonneau's article "A Perspective: History of the South Capitol Street Study Area and How the Study Area Came to Exhibit its Present Conditions" discusses the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative and the focus on South Capitol Street. But it does not even mention, let alone discuss or defend the decision to replace the "Legacy" green way concept with that of yet another urban boulevard, as if the sacrifice of the relatively rare urban opportunity for a monumental green way for the sake of a plan for yet another relatively common urban surface street is too trivial of mention.

The web site of Passonneau's firm, Passonneau and Associates makes no mention of his/their involvement with South Capitol Street related planning. http://www.Passonneau.com

Much like the Committee of 100 of which he is a member, Joseph Passonneau appears to have nothing but words of praise for the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative, D.C. Mayor Williams and Office of Planning Director Altman.

As for the stadium issue, the Committee of 100 web site has two mentions:

The proposed baseball stadium: The Committee was pleased when some sites were taken off the District's list of potential location[s], but there are questions about all three contained in recent meetings with baseball executives. The Committee for several years has espoused moving forward with the acquisition of a baseball team. The Committee has not yet addressed the question of whether outright costs (or the costs of lost opportunities) makes continued advocacy untenable. Newsletter, April/May 2004 at page 4

"...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..." 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

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].

How about comparing this 2002 stadium study's "M" Street site immediately east of South Capitol Street's existing 130' right of way, with the significantly widened South Capitol Street featured in the illustration on the Committee of 100's home page?

Less then 6 months later (September 2004) Washington, D.C. authorities announced the contract with MLB to relocate and rename the Montreal Expos as the D.C. Nationals and its selection of the site at South Capitol Street for their new baseball stadium, with the DC City Council to hold a public hearing about this stadium -- the "Ballpark Omnibus Financing and Revenue Act of 2004" Bill 15-1028 -- on October 28, 2004, chaired by Council member Jack Evans (Chairperson of the Committee on Finance and Revenue) and Council member Harold Brazil (Chairperson of the Committee on Economic Development)

Witness list October 28, 2004 Public Hearing; "Ballpark Omnibus Financing and Revenue Act of 2004" Bill 15-1028

http://www.nodctaxesforbaseball.org/witnesslist.pdf

Committee of 100 Membership

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

If the Committee of 100 does not object to this stadium site because they favor abandoning the South Capitol monumental green way concept, then where do they state this view openly?

Why do they continue to display the 1997 illustration, juxtaposition it with the Committee of 100 motto, and with Joseph Passonneau and his "Vision" award?

Why not instead show Passonneau's plan?

Joseph Passonneau: apologist for the abortion of the South Capitol Mall

What about the "Smart Growth" groups; the Sierra Club, and many stadium opponents?

The web sites of other private advocacy groups involved with transportation and or land use planning suggest a general lack of consciousness of the South Capitol green way, as some even praise DCOP AWI, Altman and Williams. The D.C. Metro area Smart Growth Network web site contains nothing anywhere one might expect

http://www.washingtonregion.net/

http://www.smartgrowth.org/

http://www.smartergrowth.net/vision/regions/dc/index.html

http://www.sustainable.org/

The D.C. Sierra Club briefly discusses South Capitol Street without mentioning the significant planning changes:

http://www.dc.sierraclub.org/conservation/trans.htm

---

South Capitol Gateway and Corridor Improvement
Tom Metcalf, June 5, 2003

The draft study from the South Capitol Gateway and Corridor Improvement Study was released at a press conference today held at the Earth Conservation Corps. The study is available online at:

http://www.publicspace.justicesustainability.com/southcapitol/index.shtml

A related study by the National Capital Planning Commission--The South Capitol Street Urban Design Study--is also available online:

http://www.ncpc.gov/publications/publications.html

Speakers at the press conference included DDOT director Dan Tangherlini, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, Congressman Steny Hoyer, and Mayor Anthony Williams. Amidst effusive praise for one another, all expressed their commitment to the transformation of S. Capitol Street into a monumental gateway to the city.

DDOT is accepting public comment on the Draft study for the next 30 days. At the Air Quality & Transportation committee meeting Monday (June 9, 2003) we'll discuss a Sierra Club statement on the study. I also encourage individuals to read the study and submit their own comments.

A few of the findings:

• The Southeast Freeway must be removed for S. Capitol Street to become an urban gateway "worthy of the nation's capital.
• "Creating the Gateway appears not to require the purchase of any private residences"
• The study finds the option of a tunnel (in addition to a new & better bridge) very favorable. In particular, the tunnel would enable the removal of the Southeast Freeway. However, of the 5 bridge replacement options, the "bridge+tunnel" has by far the highest capacity, more than double the current capacity.

---

Of the abundance of anti-stadium proposal people who testified against the stadium at the D.C. City Council October 28, 2004 Public Hearing, the focus is budgetary - e.g. why not spend the $ instead on schools? This is also true with the anti-stadium group

http://www.nodctaxesforbaseball.org
http://web.archive.org/web/20060715052153/http://www.nodctaxesforbaseball.org/

Latest Testimony and Reports:

Letter, Ed Lazere, DC Fiscal Policy Institute "RISING BASEBALL STADIUM COSTS CREATE PROBLEMS FOR THE DISTRICT", 12/16/05

Testimony, Chris Weiss, Friends of the Earth, 12/13/05

Testimony, John Capozzi, No DC Taxes for Baseball, 12/13/05

Testimony, John Capozzi, No DC Taxes for Baseball, 11/22/05

NEWS:

NEWS! Council Approves Altered Stadium Deal (Washington Post - 12/15/04)

No DC Taxes for Baseball Statement: Violate the Stadium Deal Because the Deal Violates Us - 12/13/04

News: Opposition Group Makes Final Push (Washington Post, 12/12/04)

Letter (PDF): National Minority Business Coalition Letter to Chairman Cropp on Baseball Agreement - 12/10/04

Press Release (PDF): Catania Warns Against MLB Deal with Angelos - 12/10/04

Radio Ad (Windows Media Player): Listen to the No DC Taxes for Baseball Radio Ad! (12/10/04)

Press Release: Academic Experts Send Open Letter to Chairman Cropp and Other DC Council Members;They Find DC’s Stadium Deal Is One of the Most Lopsided Ever - 12/09/04

Letter (PDF): An Open Letter from Academic Experts on Stadium Deals To Linda Cropp, Chairman District of Columbia Council, And to Other Members of the District Of Columbia Council On the Lopsided Nature of the Proposed DC Baseball Stadium Deal - 12/09/04

Media Advisory: Academic Researchers Find DC's Stadium Deal One of the Most Lopsided Ever - Thursday, December 9 at 11 a.m. 1350 Pennsylvania Ave, NW (Wilson Building), Room 104

News: Strike One. Strike Two. (Washington Post, 12/04/04)

News: Stadium foes hold on to wisdom of Yogi Berra (Washington Times, 12/03/04)

Press Release: Rising Stadium Cost Estimates Is a Serious Issue, Says No DC Taxes for Baseball Campaign, Mayor William and Council Stadium Supporters Should Not Dismiss This Problem - 12/6/04

News: Stadium Analyses Put Cost Far Higher (Washington Post, 11/13/04)

Stop the Stadium Poster! Download as a PDF or JPG. You can also email Chris Weiss to request hard copies.

WHO WE ARE:
We are DC residents and organizations who oppose taxpayer financing of a new baseball stadium. We believe that DC should use its limited resources for things that really matter - such as schools, healthcare, public safety, the environment, and basic city services. We believe that a stadium should be built by the people who stand to profit - the team owners - not DC taxpayers. And we demand an open process, complete with public hearings, on the issues of stadium financing and site selection.

BACKGROUND:
Most DC area residents would love to have a baseball team to call their own. But Mayor Williams' plan to spend $383 million to build a baseball stadium is a bad deal for the city. Research from university scholars--- as opposed to biased studies commissioned by baseball "public financing" proponents --- shows that a team would create mostly low-paying, low benefit, part-time jobs and would not strengthen the local economy. Even the most successful stadiums, such as Baltimore's Camden Yards, fail to produce enough tax revenue to justify large public subsidies. The well-off owners of Major League Baseball have told the cash-strapped District that the city must pay most of the cost of the new stadium. This is not fair, and it doesn't even make economic sense.

The DC area is the largest metro area without a team and one of the wealthiest in the nation. Major League Baseball should be begging to come here rather than making outrageous demands. The District is struggling to meet basic needs -- in environmental protection, education, libraries, health care, and other areas. It should not put in a baseball stadium before other investments that could do a lot more to improve the quality of life for DC residents and businesses.

Contact: NO DC Taxes for Baseball! Campaign, c/o Friends of the Earth,
1717 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Suite 600,
Washington, DC 20036 -
202-783-7400 (phone), 202-783-0444 (fax), cweiss@foe.org

COALITION MEMBERS:
(Partial List)

21st Century School Fund

Campaign for the DC School Budget

Council of Latino Agencies

DC Action for Children

DC Black Church Initiative

DC Fiscal Policy Institute

DC Library Renaissance Project

Empower DC

Friends of the Earth

League of Fans

League of Women Voters of the District of Columbia

Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia

Manna Inc

National Association of Minority Contractors, DC Office

Neighbors Consejo

Parents for DC Public Schools

Save DC Parks and Play Spaces

Statehood Green Party

Washington Legal Clunic for the Homeless

Washington Regional Network for Liveable Communities

Wider Opportunities for Women

Little or nothing is said about infrastructure, let alone the blocking of the green way. Out of 100+ speakers, only 2 brought up stadium-related infrastructure issues: Janet Brown from the Washington Regional Network (listed as "Resident"), who mentioned the proposed replacement bridge (but not the Legacy green way nor the AWI tunnel); and www.HighwaysAndCommunities.com founder Douglas Willinger, the only speaker to bring up the stadium site's conflicts with the Legacy South green way and how it may complicate the AWI tunnel in the relatively soft soil conditions that would likely make such tunnel construction more difficult and expensive. See testimony.

This later point was explicitly acknowledged by the response of D.C. Council member Carol Schwartz (R)

http://cos-mobile.blogspot.com/2008/07/jesuitical-new-medievalistneo-feudalist.html

The Un-Reporting: 2003+

Adopted from my 2005-2006
"The Future South Capitol Street Gateway" web site

How well-informed is the U.S. public?

questionably vague accounts

illustration from The Washington Post January 17, 2004, with East Capitol Street foreground and South Capitol Street at top edge

media "reporting" replete with vagueness and omission

Examples of this include articles in The Washington Post (750+ thousand daily- largest in the U.S. Capital City) by staff writer Benjamin Forgery, including one dated January 17, 2004 about the exhibit at the National Building Museum " D.C. Builds: The Anacostia Waterfront" with the illustration at right with East Capitol Street in the foreground, and with South Capitol Street at the top edge where it can barely be seen.

The time is right. Washington, it seems, is due a great plan every century or so -- L' Enfant's in 1791, the McMillan Commission's in 1901, and now . . . hmm, I'm not ready quite yet to anoint the Anacostia plan to such elevated status. But, together with "Extending the Legacy," the federal government's enlightened 1997 plan, the city's contribution has rich possibilities.

"...together with "Extending the Legacy... the city's contribution has rich possibilities" Both include massive real estate redevelopment, with the Legacy plan featuring a 250' wide linear green way along the South Capitol axis that tapers becoming narrower as it extends north, and the "city's contribution" (the November 2003 AWI report) one only 22' wide, or 22' or 12' wide depending on which option was selected from the November 2003 ULI Advisory Services Report: these later options to conform with the decision to keep South Capitol Street with its existing 130' width (+15' per side for wider sidewalks), reportedly to save existing buildings from being demolished. So which is it?

To experience them firsthand, that great model at the Building Museum is the place to begin. Laser-cut with the benefit of the latest Geographic Information System data, it is an awesomely detailed stimulant to the imagination.

That model shows the future South Capitol Street without the 1997 Legacy plan's broad South Capitol green way to fit within its existing 130' (or 160') total right of way, in order to save existing buildings that get nonetheless replaced by new real estate redevelopment: a rejection of eminent domain for public use; and an embracing of eminent domain for private use. So why no mention of any of this in the article's text?

Or his Monday, July 12, 2004 article (1st in a 5 part series; Page C01) "The Ripple Effect: An $8 Billion Development Plan Promises Payoffs Far Beyond the High-Water Mark" coming no closer to reporting on this plan substitution then stating:

The two plans are in basic agreement. Both call for new, mixed-use neighborhoods in the city's eastern segments. Both emphasize mass transit and new transportation infrastructure. Both advocate an active, urbane Anacostia waterfront. The Legacy plan foresees spreading the cultural wealth of memorials and museums beyond Washington's monumental core. The Anacostia planners rightfully embraced this inspired idea in proposals for major parks on both sides of the river at either end of the South Capitol Street Bridge.

"...in basic agreement" as if there were no disagreements worth even mentioning?!

failing to question the justification to avoid displacing existing buildings, in the context where the building are nonetheless removed and replaced by new real estate development

Page 1, The Southwester, July 2003

Page 5, The Southwester, July 2003

The Southwester (JULY 2003) circulation 10,000, gets it right in reporting on the decision to keep South Capitol Street at 130 feet, and it is accompanied by the correct (subsequent) illustrations, clearly showing South Capitol Street with a median "green way" no wider then 12'.

http://www.swdc.org/news/Southwester_JULY_2003.pdf

But it repeats the study's point that "Creating the South Capitol Street Gateway appears not to require the purchase of any private residences because existing street right-of-way can largely accommodate the needed transportation facilities." without any comment on the inherent lack of logic, insofar that the buildings "saved" by not widening the South Capitol Street right of way for the monumental green way, will be nonetheless removed and replaced by new real estate development, with all of the recent studies showing South Capitol Street lined by new buildings that replace the existing buildings.

Future South Capitol Street with 130' right of way lined by new real estate development

It is also remarkably uncritical of the study's initial justification that it "selected 130 feet as South Capitol Street's optimal street section because it fulfilled the greatest number of transportation and urban design objectives." given the study's goal of " A linear open space is envisioned along the entire length of this great boulevard, connecting Capitol Hill and the Mall to a revitalized Anacostia river park. This public open space system should include direct connections to a planned "River walk". Executive summary; page 3)

http://www.ncpc.gov/publications_press/s_cap/part_2.pdf

and the USDOT mis-describing things in the Federal Register: APRIL 26, 2005

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/2005/April/Day-26/i8330.htm

Environmental Impact Statement for the South Capitol Street Roadway Improvement and Bridge Replacement Project

The purpose of the South Capitol Street project is to create a new gateway. This gateway will consist of a balanced, sustainable, multi modal transportation network that knits neighborhoods together and facilitates the movement of commuters with minimal impact on the surrounding neighborhoods. The South Capitol Street Corridor, as defined in the AWI Framework Plan, is intended to provide better access to waterfront areas east and west of the river, including Poplar Point and Buzzard Point, and better serve historic Anacostia, and near southeast and southwest neighborhoods. The future Anacostia Waterfront will include a cleaner river, sustainable waterfront neighborhoods, new and revitalized waterfront parks, and vibrant cultural attractions. The creation of new transit stops and pedestrian facilities where none exist, due to physical barriers along South Capitol Street and Suitland Parkway, will create new opportunities for movement throughout the corridor. Without improvements to facilitate the efficient traffic flow of all modes, the level and duration of congestion will continue to deteriorate throughout the corridor.

The project includes the proposed redevelopment of South Capitol Street per, the National Capital Planning Commission's 1997 plan, Extending the Legacy, Planning America's Capital for the 21st Century. The plan includes South Capitol Street as a civic gateway to central Washington providing a mix of shopping, housing, and offices. It also proposes replacing the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with a new six-lane span that would accommodate pedestrians and bicycles. The 2003 South Capitol Gateway and Corridor Improvement Study, completed under congressional direction, expressed the challenges and opportunities for this corridor including disinvestments, traffic functionality, local access, and the general need to restore this corridor to its original intent as a grand gateway to the nation's capital.

Why not instead say that "the project includes the proposed redeployment of South Capitol Street as per the 2003 ULI Advisory Services Report"?

South Capitol Street Project EIS web site: http://www.southcapitolEIS.com

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