DC NORTH

The Nose

Rethinking the NCMC

by: Anonymous

Call it the flip-flop of the year.

On January 5, DC Mayor Anthony Williams and Howard University President H. Patrick Swygert signed an agreement outlining the construction and operation of the 250-bed National Capital Medical Center, a new $400 million hospital set to emerge from the ruins of the D.C. General Hospital on Reservation 13. Just over a month later, Williams and Swygert penned an editorial for the Washington Post in which they passionately made their case for the hospital, writing, “It is unacceptable that 140,000 people in Washington -- or 42 percent of the city's population -- have inadequate access to health care, especially emergency care. All the District's trauma centers are clustered in Northwest within a mile of one another, leaving some areas of the city, particularly Southeast, without emergency services. Based on this lack of emergency room capacity, the demand for health care services in general, population growth and standard hospitalization rates, we must increase hospital and emergency room capacity in the District.”

Yet by mid-April, after months of bruising debate over the wisdom of the plan, Williams seemed to be reconsidering his endorsement, writing Swygert, “I would be remiss in my duties as mayor if I did not address the potential impact of the National Capital Medical Center (NCMC) project in light of these concerns. It is essential not only to consider these matters, but it is incumbent upon me to listen.” And listen he did -- on April 19, Williams appointed a 12-member panel to study the issue, asking that they present him with their conclusions on the NCMC within 60 days.

NCMC proponents were shocked. What provoked this sudden change of heart? No one we spoke to could say. Council-member Vincent Gray, an ardent supporter of the hospital, was especially short on words, calling Williams’ decision “inexplicable.” Vanessa Dixon, an organizer for the Citizens for the NCMC, went a step further, calling it a “betrayal” and “an act of cowardice.” Both questioned why a mayor who had fought so hard for the baseball stadium would so quickly turn on the hospital he had championed for three years and, more importantly, seemed to be moving forward through the council. But even more confounding for them both was why Williams would turn the decision over to a panel stocked with NCMC opponents – according to a handout passed out by Citizens for NCMC at a rally on April 25 outside the Wilson Building, seven of the panel’s members have expressed opposition to the hospital, and six of those have financial stakes in competing hospitals or health care providers.

Plenty of theories are floating around as to why Williams so surprisingly changed his mind. Some say he knew the council would balk once all the financial details came to light, and given the beating he took over the stadium, Williams just wasn’t willing to prep for another legislative battle. If this were true, Swygert’s claim that Williams is a “lame duck mayor” may have been accurate. Others guess that he was trying to stymie a deal being worked out between Council-member David Catania and Gray, burying the hospital in a hostile panel so as to eventually take credit for the alternative plan that may emerge. And others claim that he may have gotten the idea from Catania, whose endorsement of any plan would be key.

Regardless, for the time being the NCMC is on life support. Whether or not it is ever fully revived is a question that will be answered two months from now. We’re guessing not.

Orange’s Long Shot Candidacy

In late March, mayoral candidate and Ward 5 council-member Vincent Orange summed up his thoughts on the campaign to replace Anthony Williams, optimistically noting, “It’s a race between Cropp and Orange. Fenty, he looks like a fish out of water. His season is gone. His season was putting posters in people’s yards. Now it's the season of substance. And Fenty’s not even part of the debate.” Many of the District’s political observers were left scratching their heads, wondering, “Is he serious?” Did the man that the Washington Post’s Colbert King once compared to a “jackleg preacher” really think that it was he against Linda Cropp for the city’s top job?

Probably, and that’s part of Orange’s indescribable appeal. Regardless of what obstacles stand in his way, Orange seems to see his mayoral chances as somewhere between high and written in stone. And while his candidacy has its supporters, many political analysts have written it off as too long a shot. In the only public test of support to date, he fared badly in March’s Ward 6 straw poll, coming in last place with a mere four percent of the votes. But this hardly matters to Orange – his campaign pushes on, even at the expense of the Ward 5 seat he could easily have taken again.

To his credit, Orange does present himself as a qualified candidate. His performances at the many mayoral forums thus far have been more inspired and more consistent than any of his opponents, especially fellow council-members Adrian Fenty and Linda Cropp. Where they have failed to find their footing – Fenty often sounds stilted and uninspired, while Cropp seems to expend too much energy trying to relay her long political resume – Orange has successfully blended his larger-than-life personality with an insistent repetition of his achievements and his mayoral ambitions. Of all the candidates, Orange is the only one to have coined a campaign slogan (the three E’s – education and employment for economic development) and pained himself to repeat it as often as possible. As elementary as the tactic is, it attests to the fact that Orange is a disciplined and engaging public speaker – much like the preacher King accused him of being.

But these traits are often overshadowed by the showman side of Orange’s populist personality. He’s given away free gas to District motorists, blown $12,500 on a sign for his pricey Chinatown campaign office, produced an autobiographical documentary about himself entitled “Man on a Mission,” dropped $10,000 to run a campaign jingle to the tune of “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” and rode alongside Williams in a horse-drawn carriage during the recent Emancipation Day parade. Moments like these prove that he runs his campaign like a used car salesman desperately trying to pitch his wares – big, loud and colorful. These stunts may do more to entertain District residents than to attract their votes, unfortunately.

Orange has talent and ambition. Had he waited another four years to run for mayor, he may have been able to leverage a senior position on the council and continue building up his reputation as an effective legislator and city leader with citywide appeal. But what use would that be, after all? He’s convinced he’s going to win this time around.

Box: Ward 6 Council Race Straw Poll Results

Results from the Ward 6 Democrat’s April 25th Straw Poll show School Board Representative Tommy Wells as the man to beat.

Candidate Votes Percentage

Tommy Wells 119 55%

Curtis Etherly 30 14

Leo Pinson 23 11

undecided 18 8

Will Cobb 7 3

other 8 4

Keith Jarrell 2 0

Fourteen additional ballets were challenged and will be counted later if the office of the Board of Elections certifies that the voters are registered Democrats in Ward 6.

Correction

Last month we erroneously wrote that mayoral hopeful Michael Brown was over $72,000 in debt. His campaign finance forms seemed to indicate as much, but a quick call to his campaign staff proved that we were wildly off the mark – Brown claims just over $2,000 in campaign-related debt. The mistake was honest, though – apparently a snafu in the District’s campaign finance forms left Brown to report that his cash-on-hand situation was deep in the red, to the tune of $72,471.85. We mistakenly took this to mean debt, which it is not. Our apologies go out to our readers and to Brown’s campaign workers, who were likely left scratching their heads or furiously tearing through receipts after reading our initial claim.


<--previous Page	Print This Page
The Nose
Rethinking the NCMC
by: Anonymous
Call it the flip-flop of the year. On January 5, DC Mayor Anthony Williams and Howard University President H. Patrick Swygert signed an agreement outlining the construction and operation of the 250-bed National Capital Medical Center, a new $400 million hospital set to emerge from the ruins of the D.C. General Hospital on Reservation 13. Just over a month later, Williams and Swygert penned an editorial for the Washington Post in which they passionately made their case for the hospital, writing, “It is unacceptable that 140,000 people in Washington -- or 42 percent of the city's population -- have inadequate access to health care, especially emergency care. All the District's trauma centers are clustered in Northwest within a mile of one another, leaving some areas of the city, particularly Southeast, without emergency services. Based on this lack of emergency room capacity, the demand for health care services in general, population growth and standard hospitalization rates, we must increase hospital and emergency room capacity in the District.” Yet by mid-April, after months of bruising debate over the wisdom of the plan, Williams seemed to be reconsidering his endorsement, writing Swygert, “I would be remiss in my duties as mayor if I did not address the potential impact of the National Capital Medical Center (NCMC) project in light of these concerns. It is essential not only to consider these matters, but it is incumbent upon me to listen.” And listen he did -- on April 19, Williams appointed a 12-member panel to study the issue, asking that they present him with their conclusions on the NCMC within 60 days. NCMC proponents were shocked. What provoked this sudden change of heart? No one we spoke to could say. Council-member Vincent Gray, an ardent supporter of the hospital, was especially short on words, calling Williams’ decision “inexplicable.” Vanessa Dixon, an organizer for the Citizens for the NCMC, went a step further, calling it a “betrayal” and “an act of cowardice.” Both questioned why a mayor who had fought so hard for the baseball stadium would so quickly turn on the hospital he had championed for three years and, more importantly, seemed to be moving forward through the council. But even more confounding for them both was why Williams would turn the decision over to a panel stocked with NCMC opponents – according to a handout passed out by Citizens for NCMC at a rally on April 25 outside the Wilson Building, seven of the panel’s members have expressed opposition to the hospital, and six of those have financial stakes in competing hospitals or health care providers. Plenty of theories are floating around as to why Williams so surprisingly changed his mind. Some say he knew the council would balk once all the financial details came to light, and given the beating he took over the stadium, Williams just wasn’t willing to prep for another legislative battle. If this were true, Swygert’s claim that Williams is a “lame duck mayor” may have been accurate. Others guess that he was trying to stymie a deal being worked out between Council-member David Catania and Gray, burying the hospital in a hostile panel so as to eventually take credit for the alternative plan that may emerge. And others claim that he may have gotten the idea from Catania, whose endorsement of any plan would be key. Regardless, for the time being the NCMC is on life support. Whether or not it is ever fully revived is a question that will be answered two months from now. We’re guessing not. Orange’s Long Shot Candidacy In late March, mayoral candidate and Ward 5 council-member Vincent Orange summed up his thoughts on the campaign to replace Anthony Williams, optimistically noting, “It’s a race between Cropp and Orange. Fenty, he looks like a fish out of water. His season is gone. His season was putting posters in people’s yards. Now it's the season of substance. And Fenty’s not even part of the debate.” Many of the District’s political observers were left scratching their heads, wondering, “Is he serious?” Did the man that the Washington Post’s Colbert King once compared to a “jackleg preacher” really think that it was he against Linda Cropp for the city’s top job? Probably, and that’s part of Orange’s indescribable appeal. Regardless of what obstacles stand in his way, Orange seems to see his mayoral chances as somewhere between high and written in stone. And while his candidacy has its supporters, many political analysts have written it off as too long a shot. In the only public test of support to date, he fared badly in March’s Ward 6 straw poll, coming in last place with a mere four percent of the votes. But this hardly matters to Orange – his campaign pushes on, even at the expense of the Ward 5 seat he could easily have taken again. To his credit, Orange does present himself as a qualified candidate. His performances at the many mayoral forums thus far have been more inspired and more consistent than any of his opponents, especially fellow council-members Adrian Fenty and Linda Cropp. Where they have failed to find their footing – Fenty often sounds stilted and uninspired, while Cropp seems to expend too much energy trying to relay her long political resume – Orange has successfully blended his larger-than-life personality with an insistent repetition of his achievements and his mayoral ambitions. Of all the candidates, Orange is the only one to have coined a campaign slogan (the three E’s – education and employment for economic development) and pained himself to repeat it as often as possible. As elementary as the tactic is, it attests to the fact that Orange is a disciplined and engaging public speaker – much like the preacher King accused him of being. But these traits are often overshadowed by the showman side of Orange’s populist personality. He’s given away free gas to District motorists, blown $12,500 on a sign for his pricey Chinatown campaign office, produced an autobiographical documentary about himself entitled “Man on a Mission,” dropped $10,000 to run a campaign jingle to the tune of “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” and rode alongside Williams in a horse-drawn carriage during the recent Emancipation Day parade. Moments like these prove that he runs his campaign like a used car salesman desperately trying to pitch his wares – big, loud and colorful. These stunts may do more to entertain District residents than to attract their votes, unfortunately. Orange has talent and ambition. Had he waited another four years to run for mayor, he may have been able to leverage a senior position on the council and continue building up his reputation as an effective legislator and city leader with citywide appeal. But what use would that be, after all? He’s convinced he’s going to win this time around. Box: Ward 6 Council Race Straw Poll Results Results from the Ward 6 Democrat’s April 25th Straw Poll show School Board Representative Tommy Wells as the man to beat. Candidate Votes Percentage Tommy Wells 119 55% Curtis Etherly 30 14 Leo Pinson 23 11 undecided 18 8 Will Cobb 7 3 other 8 4 Keith Jarrell 2 0 Fourteen additional ballets were challenged and will be counted later if the office of the Board of Elections certifies that the voters are registered Democrats in Ward 6. Correction Last month we erroneously wrote that mayoral hopeful Michael Brown was over $72,000 in debt. His campaign finance forms seemed to indicate as much, but a quick call to his campaign staff proved that we were wildly off the mark – Brown claims just over $2,000 in campaign-related debt. The mistake was honest, though – apparently a snafu in the District’s campaign finance forms left Brown to report that his cash-on-hand situation was deep in the red, to the tune of $72,471.85. We mistakenly took this to mean debt, which it is not. Our apologies go out to our readers and to Brown’s campaign workers, who were likely left scratching their heads or furiously tearing through receipts after reading our initial claim.