C4 EZ RE THE WASHINGTON POST.SUNDAY, MARCH 27 , 2022
BY LIZ BRENT,
CARTER DOUGHERTY,
DAN REED,
ERIC SAUL,
ABE SAFFER
AND GRAY KIMBROUGH
S
ay what you will about
Montgomery County, but
we have good ideas that we
can use to tackle some of
the immense challenges the re-
gion faces over the next genera-
tion. With leadership that strives
for reasonable compromise, not
ideological battles, we can begin
to make some progress.
County Executive Marc Elrich
(D), despite his heated rhetoric,
has repeatedly failed to rise to the
challenges that Montgomery
County is facing. We are grap-
pling with a housing crisis, our
local response to global climate
change, and the constant effort to
promote economic development
and racial equity. These issues
require innovative thinking and
strong leadership.
One issue looms large. Thrive
Montgomery 2050, a general
plan touching on housing, trans-
portation, land use and the econ-
omy, is the best chance Mont-
gomery County has for integrat-
ing various strands of policy into
something approaching a com-
prehensive plan for facing the
future. The stakes could not be
higher.
Elrich’s scorched-earth opposi-
tion to the plan employs all the
tactics familiar to anyone who
tries to bring change, especially
in the county’s most well-to-do
neighborhoods: demands for
endless consultation wrapped in
vague concerns about inequality.
The satire of the Takoma Torch is
painfully on point: “Marc Elrich
Responds to County’s Housing
Crisis by Unveiling ‘Thrive Mont-
gomery 1950.’”
Montgomery County is experi-
encing a housing crisis across the
region, and across almost all
types of housing. Starter homes,
apartment buildings, midrange
houses, subsidized housing and
even garages repurposed into
dwellings should all be welcome
to face down this challenge. Yet
even as teachers, police officers
and other front-line workers
struggle to afford to live here,
Elrich refuses to push for new
construction.
Elrich’s rhetorical sleight of
hand is to criticize any effort to
expand the housing supply that is
not entirely affordable — that is,
priced for low-income residents.
Consider the case of the Artspace
development in Silver Spring,
which Elrich opposed with the
glib comment “nothing afford-
able is going to come out of this.”
Four of the 11 townhouses were
affordable and sold for less than
$400,000, and there were 68
affordable live/work apartments.
When others suggest subsidized
housing, he rejects the possibility
in conservative terms. “We don’t
have the money to pay the subsi-
dies,” Elrich said in 2019. “I’m
trying to be realistic.”
In 2019, the county council
resolved to add 41,000 new hous-
ing units by 2030, most of them
affordable to low- and medium-
income residents, but council
members had to do it over El-
rich’s objections. His nonsensical
argument? That the county
should first raise incomes so that
housing aimed at this demo-
graphic would not be necessary.
The baffled response from Casey
Anderson, the chair of the Plan-
ning Board: “We don’t have
enough housing units, period.
Whether or not we have higher or
lower-wage jobs, we still have
people here who need a place to
live.”
Our housing crisis is a dispro-
portionate burden for Black and
Latino residents, whose median
income is 60 percent of their
White counterparts’ income. Ev-
ery step we fail to take to alleviate
this burden is a disservice to the
residents who can least afford to
bear it.
The same can be said of our
transportation shortcomings. El-
rich promised to expand the net-
work of bus rapid transit lines he
proposed in 2008, but only one
line opened, and without dedi-
cated lanes Elrich said were es-
sential, because he bent to pro-
tests from a noisy minority. He
sought changes to the Purple
Line now under construction
that would have significantly
harmed service while ignoring
opportunities for additional im-
provements to it. He also failed to
work with state leaders to get
transit improvements alongside
new toll lanes on Interstates 495
and 270.
Transportation policy is a large
part of Montgomery County’s
contribution to fighting climate
change. Elrich promised environ-
mentalists he would close the
county’s trash incinerator by
2022, but it remains open, pro-
ducing significant pollution. He
praised the very limited installa-
tion of solar panels in the Agri-
culture Reserve as environmen-
talists were urging more. Other
measures that could help reduce
climate-changing emissions have
been the subject of much study
but little action.
Elrich’s record on economic
development has been awful,
with job and new business crea-
tion lagging. That has left him
grasping at straws. He recently
touted “record private invest-
ment of $18 billion” last year,
without mentioning that 60 per-
cent of the $18 billion was from
two purchases that do not bring
any jobs, tax revenue or growth.
More than two years since a
law requiring the county to have
a countywide racial equity and
social justice plan, only draft
regulations have been submitted.
The murder of George Floyd in
2020 must be an event that
catalyzes durable progress, not
simply another racial injustice
we let pass without action.
Montgomery County’s prob-
lems are not insurmountable
with the right leadership and
vision. Here’s hoping we start
down that road as soon as possi-
ble.
The writers are Montgomery County
residents and activists.
Montgomery County’s problems are solvable
BY CHARLIE GERSTEIN
T
he Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA), passed in the
wake of the Watergate scan-
dal, is a crucial tool to hold
government officials accountable.
Under the law, anyone can ask any
D.C. agency to disclose almost any
documents. The purpose is transpar-
ency.
But, according to the allegations in
a lawsuit, the D.C. police department
violates the Constitution and keeps
public documents from the people by
putting their critics on a watchlist and
denying them public information.
Worse, D.C. Attorney General Karl A.
Racine (D) is contradicting the mayor
and arguing in court that the watch-
list is constitutional.
Amy Phillips, a defense lawyer and
police-accountability advocate, said
she saw firsthand how the police
department abuses its control over
FOIA. According to a lawsuit my firm
filed on her behalf, Phillips was ille-
gally placed on the watchlist, which
was created by former police chief
Peter Newsham, because she criticizes
the police.
In response to the lawsuit, D.C.
Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) flatly said
that there should be no watchlist, that
all D.C. agencies should process re-
quests for public information “expedi-
tiously” and that they should remain
“agnostic” to the viewpoint of the
people making the requests. The may-
or rightly thinks everyone should
have access to public documents,
whether they criticize the police or
not. But just weeks later, the D.C.
attorney general contradicted her in
court. According to Racine, the al-
leged watchlist “makes sense” and
complies with the Constitution even
though it treats critics of the police
worse than their supporters, a stun-
ning argument that directly contra-
dicts the position of our mayor.
Racine is not running for reelec-
tion, and with the primary election to
replace him only months away, the
public should understand how its
elected attorney general views ac-
countability and transparency. The
attorney general does not have to take
whatever position a D.C. agency
wants him to take and should answer
to the interests of the people, not the
police. Racine himself said this when
he accepted a Profile in Public Integri-
ty award. And he has honored the
principle before: Late last year, he
withdrew from representing the De-
partment of Corrections in the federal
government’s investigation into ap-
palling conditions in the D.C. jail. As
such, it is all the more shocking that
Racine chooses to explicitly defend an
unconstitutional watchlist.
The public should demand that the
candidates to replace him explain
how they will handle situations like
this in the future. Will they do whatev-
er the police department or any other
department tells them to do in court?
Or will they take a stand and insist
that D.C. agencies follow the law?
The writer is a partner at the law firm
Gerstein Harrow, which is representing
Amy Phillips in a federal lawsuit against
the District.
D.C. should always support transparency
CRAIG HUDSON FOR THE WASHINGTON POST
A police vehicle in D.C. on Aug. 19.
Local Opinions
WASHINGTONPOST.COM/LOCALOPINIONS. [email protected]
BY BRETT TOLMAN
V
irginia Democrats made a critical error this
month by playing partisan games and voting
down four qualified candidates nominated
to the Virginia Parole Board. In so doing, the
Democrats have all but killed the critically needed
overhaul of the parole system in Virginia. The
momentum for bipartisan support of public scrutiny
and more transparency ended suddenly as these
commonwealth legislators chose to play politics with
the criminal justice system.
No matter your politics, transparency in the
decision-making process is the only mechanism to
ensure consistency. If parole is viewed as a magical
black box, controlled by a few people, with no outside
insight into its standards and decision-making, then
the public suffers and can conclude only that it’s an
arbitrary and unfair process ripe for corruption.
In his first day in office, Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R)
signed an executive order “to restore integrity and
confidence” in the parole board. His goal in terminat-
ing the previous members was to shine some light on
the parole board and get rid of any perceived
corruption. The General Assembly took the next step
when it passed Senate Bill 5 with a bipartisan
majority to mandate that votes taken by the parole
board be made public when they grant or deny
parole.
Ignoring the previous bipartisan mandate of
transparency, Senate Democrats blocked four of
Youngkin’s extremely qualified parole board nomi-
nees. One nominee was a former Richmond police
officer who survived being shot in the head; another
was a Latina who advocates for survivors of sexual
and domestic violence. Democrats also said no to a
sheriff, as well as a female attorney and law
professor. Youngkin is not allowed to reappoint the
rejected nominees despite the blatant political
divide.
As of March 16, the Virginia Parole Board had a
backlog of 378 cases waiting to be heard, while only
the chairman is in place next to four empty seats.
Scores of those cases have been recommended for
parole by designated parole examiners.
When you consider that more than 95 percent of
all people behind bars will eventually be released,
our society must look at parole as a tool with no room
for politics or secrecy. As incarceration populations
continue to challenge Virginia and other states
across the country, it’s costing American taxpayers
billions of dollars that could be better spent on
reentry and training programs to help the very
people who are being released into our communities.
Parole is the only remaining mechanism to
address mistakes in our criminal justice system. The
number of exonerated Americans averages about
three a week, according to the National Registry of
Exonerations, and an estimated 2 to 10 percent of all
incarcerated Americans are wrongfully convicted.
Parole release decisions must be based on objective
factors by qualified parole boards examining for-
ward-looking risk.
Parole is one of the most important tools to
address over-incarceration, and for it to be an
effective tool, it must be built on a foundation of
transparency, consistency and fairness. The hall-
mark of fairness in the administration of justice has
always been consistency.
Every state in this country needs to have parole,
but the process needs transparency and clarity so
that it restores confidence that our criminal justice
system is open to being held accountable. The power
to take away a person’s liberty is the greatest power
we grant to government officials. It is where greater
accountability and transparency are required, not
less.
The writer is the executive director of Right on Crime and a
former U.S. attorney.
The Virginia
Parole Board
is too important
for political plays
Parole release decisions must be
based on objective factors by
q ualified parole boards examining
forward-looking risk.
BY EVAN DOUGLAS
A
s a former police officer with
the D.C. police, I’ve seen the
fallout of the “war on drugs”
and tough-on-crime policies.
I’ve seen firsthand the problems they
cause in our communities, ranging
from family destabilization to the
heartbreak of someone facing addic-
tion. After witnessing these ill effects,
I believe the only way forward is
decriminalization, effective harm re-
duction methods, drug education and
record sealing. Decrim Poverty DC
recently released a legislative propos-
al — the District of Columbia Drug
Policy Reform Act (D.C. DPRA) — that
would accomplish all of this.
Decrim Poverty DC’s legislative
proposal would remove criminal pen-
alties for personal-use drug posses-
sion and would invest in public health
interventions.
I’ve dealt with a lot of situations
that motivate my commitment to drug
policy reform, but there is one inci-
dent I will never forget. In July 2017, I
came across a resident at the intersec-
tion of Ninth and Barnaby streets SE.
He approached my squad car and said,
“Hey, a buddy of mine needs help
behind the church. He isn’t looking
too good.” I informed the dispatcher
where I was going and went with him.
I was not ready for what I saw: a
body. A person. The remains of a man
after a week of rainstorms and D.C.’s
blazing summer heat. Scattered by my
feet were several baggies and a sy-
ringe.
I thought to myself: “What a horri-
ble way to die.” I couldn’t help think-
ing, “It doesn’t have to be this way.”
Confronting the loss of life is always
painful, but it is even more so when
that death could have been prevented.
Our current criminal justice ap-
proach prioritizes punishment over
treatment, leading to devastating,
lifelong impacts. A drug conviction
means jobs are harder to find, housing
is harder to find, public financial
assistance is restricted and expensive
legal fees pile up. Compounded, these
factors complicate people’s journey to
recovery, making them more likely to
reoffend.
The D.C. DPRA would reduce incar-
ceration, repeat offenses and the col-
lateral damage caused by imprison-
ment, easing reentry for people with
existing drug-related convictions. Per-
haps most important, by centering
evidence-based harm reduction solu-
tions, we will save lives.
When drugs are decriminalized, we
will see an improvement in police-
community relations. Officers rely on
witnesses and survivors of crime to
come forward with evidence so we can
do our jobs effectively. If someone is
afraid they’ll be arrested for some-
thing such as simple possession,
they’re less likely to come forward.
This affects officers’ clearance rates:
In the 1960s, before the declaration of
a “war on drugs,” the clearance rate for
homicide was around 90 percent. By
2000, three decades into the failed
war on drugs, that rate had dropped to
about 60 percent.
A recent study in Baltimore indicat-
ed drug decriminalization did not
lead to increased crime rates or
threats to public safety. The findings
are consistent with decades of re-
search showing that decriminaliza-
tion does not lead to more crime. In
Portugal, rates of fatal overdoses and
drug-related crime have fallen dra-
matically since that country imple-
mented decriminalization in 2000.
The harm reduction centers includ-
ed in the proposal would save lives by
providing access to sterile syringes
and through testing drugs for purity
and potency, reducing the risk of fatal
overdoses. Additionally, these centers
would offer access to mental health
and addiction treatment, primary
health care and connections to other
support systems, which are the first
steps toward confronting substance
use disorder. Ninety-three percent of
D.C. residents are ready to establish
centers to tackle drug use, addiction
and overdose through evidence-based
public health interventions.
Harm reduction works. Overdose
prevention programs have been im-
plemented around the world with
terrific success. OnPoint NYC, which
opened late last year, has already
reversed 134 overdoses that could
have been fatal otherwise. To date,
there have been no deaths at any of the
more than 120 overdose prevention
centers around the world. It’s time for
D.C. to act.
Tough-on-crime policies only hurt
our communities. Laws criminalizing
drug use and addiction have lifelong
consequences for our most vulnerable
neighbors. We must reverse the legacy
of the war on drugs and enact evi-
dence-based policies that will save
lives. Decrim Poverty DC’s legislative
proposal is a critical step forward for
D.C., and I hope to see the D.C. Council
swiftly introduce and pass it and put
its lifesaving initiatives into action.
The writer, a former patrol officer with the
D.C. police, is a speaker with the Law
Enforcement Action Partnership, a
nonprofit group of police, prosecutors,
judges and other criminal justice officials
who want to improve the criminal justice
system.
A new way forward in drug policy for D.C.
MATT ROURKE/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Keith Lewis disposes of used syringes at a needle exchange run by Camden
Area Health Education Center in Camden, N.J., on F eb. 2 4, 202 2.
