Do you have a plan to vote?
Let us tell you the information you need to register and cast a ballot in D.C.
What you said about what we said last week
Endorsing a slate of political candidates for office inevitably produces strong reader reaction, and Washington City Paper readers did not fail to rage at last week’s Politics Issue. Accusations that City Paper is “gay” for a particular local politico abounded, and insults containing varying levels of correct spelling were plentiful. (We assume the repeated assertion that City Paper is a “looser paper” from commenter realmaz was intended to read as “loser paper,” but who knows, maybe realmaz objects to our relaxed, Wranglersesque ways.)
But our endorsements and analysis of issues on the ballot drew some thoughtful commentary as well. Of note: a pattern of secret crushes on attorney general candidate Paul Zukerberg, whom WCP endorsed for the position. Even self-reported supporters of Zukerberg’s opponent Karl Racine, who topped the City Paper/Kojo Nnamdi Show poll, couldn’t help but compliment his personality and efforts to get the race on this fall’s ballot. “Were it possible to vote in two candidates, I would add Zukerberg to my first choice—Racine,” wrote reader Wesley. “Zukerberg surely deserves something beyond respect for making this race possible. But Racine is just far more qualified for the position. Sorry.”
Commenter ForRacine echoed the sentiment, writing, “Zukerberg is cool as shit, and if this race was not for a position in the capital of the free world, I would have chosen him.”
Few of the candidates not endorsed by WCP publicly commented on being passed over, but Tim Krepp, candidate for delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives and occasional City Paper contributor, took to Twitter to express no hard feelings for losing the nod to Eleanor Holmes Norton. “So close, Washington City Paper, so very close to getting it right,” Krepp wrote. “But I’ll take my ‘municipal mensch’ title and declare victory.”
Elsewhere in the issue, Mark Andersen’s piece on D.C.’s plan to save low-income housing sparked debate on crime, schools, and the city’s housing laws. While many readers expressed regret that D.C.’s New Communities initiative failed to help low-income residents stay within the city, others questioned why communities of subsidized housing should be saved.
“We should be tearing down all of this housing,” wrote reader Dalek American. “Public housing are literally incubators for high crime and create network effects that produce significant issues. We should not be warehousing the poor in urban areas…In terms of displacing the residents, I see this as an overall positive. The concentration was at the heart of the problem.” Fellow reader Wrack called BS: “Er…so the very poor shouldn’t get anywhere to live, and that’s that…? Seriously?”
And commenter Tony Ross noted that declaring low-income residents should simply move to the cheaper suburbs when their subsidized housing disappears is not a panacea. “The issues aren’t quite as black and white,” Tony Ross wrote. “The dependency and disorder is only increased as people are pushed to exurbs where they don’t have existing support networks and community ties…And while I’m not suggesting that people don’t have agency, until the last few years this community has had shitty schools and shitty social services, so of course folks are going to be underskilled and underemployed.”
Department of Corrections
Due to a production error, a page of last week’s Thursday theater listings in City Lights was printed twice.