DC

Chipotle boasts that it offers “food with integrity,” but the popular restaurant chain may want to consider an addendum in light of its recent actions: “so long as the federal government doesn’t get involved.”

The chain was forced to fire over 600 employees from its 50 Minnesota restaurants last month — about half of its employees in the state — in light of an audit conducted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Says one Minnesota paper,

The investigation of Chipotle began several months ago, [Chipotle communications director Chris Arnold] said, when ICE asked to see work eligibility documents. The company was not told why it was singled out for review. ICE then provided Chipotle with a list of employees whose documents might be invalid, he said.

Chipotle tries to screen new employees, but some provide false documents showing they are eligible workers, Arnold said. In cases where employees insist they have the proper documents, Chipotle has sought to give them extra time to produce the identification, he said.

“We have asked ICE whether they would allow a 90-day period to resolve discrepancies, and they have told us that they absolutely would not,” Arnold said.

Not only is ICE denying Chipotle the 90-day period to clear up documentation issues with its employees — an allowance that is “standard practice,” according to the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) — but it is actively increasing the size and scope of its investigation of the restaurant chain. Earlier this month, ICE announced that it would also be auditing the 60 Chipotle locations in Virginia and Washington, D.C.

Robert McGoey, a co-coordinator of the rights-based organization Denver Fair Food, suspects that Chipotle will eventually be audited in every state due to its 80 percent Latino employment. Similarly, a February 11 article in The Nation reveals that John Morton, the head of ICE, says it “plans many more mass firings.” This tactic fails to meet the organization’s goals, made explicit in the same article:

The ICE website says it targets employers “who are using illegal workers to drive down wages … [those] likely to pay illegal workers substandard wages or force them to endure intolerable working conditions.”

At Chipotle, however, as in every other sanctions target, ICE never improved conditions. Wages remain the same. In fact, although Morton boasts ICE collected $7 million in employer fines during 2,740 audits, those who cooperated in firing workers were given immunity. The only people penalized were workers.

It seems that Chipotle is being targeted on the basis of its largely Latino demographics, rather than any abuse of undocumented workers in the workplace. While wages are unlikely to improve in a market in which “there are nearly five unemployed workers competing for each available job,” ICE’s failure to leave improvements in its wake was virtually guaranteed when it targeted a fast-food chain with above-minimum wages across the board. According to a report from the Immigration Policy Center published on February 9,

[Concerning] Chipotle, labor leaders who criticized the firm for the way it handled layoffs in the wake of the ICE audit say the company is “definitely above the bottom tier” in its overall treatment of workers. Even though the chain is non-union, the SEIU’s Nammacher said Chipotle pays above the minimum wage and offers some basic benefits. “They’re an above-board corporate player,” he stated.

Not only is Chipotle a poor target for an organization seeking to root out “intolerable working conditions” (Chipotle is even known for its practice of paying higher food costs in order to better the compensation of supply-chain employees), but ICE’s impacts harm the very individuals whose interests the organization purports to be acting in. According to a 2009-2010 report from the Human Rights Immigrant Community Action Network,

ICE’s new workplace enforcement strategy of auditing employment files, allowing employers to fire undocumented workers en masse – also dubbed “silent raids” – has deepened the economic and humanitarian crisis in many communities across the country, making workers further vulnerable to labor rights violations and other forms of abuse.

The study details several cases in 2009 and 2010 in which ICE audits — intended to publish “bad apple” employers — did anything but.  ”In each of these cases, rather than hold the employer accountable for existing labor law violations and abuses, ICE’s I-9 audits triggered massive layoffs leaving thousands of families in crisis and more vulnerable to abuse.”

SEIU president Javier Morillo described the effects of this practice on undocumented workers, stating that “They are pushed out of jobs where they are being paid above the table.” He added, “They pay taxes, Social Security taxes, etc. They are being moved, many of them, to precisely the bad employers that pay cash, that pay less than minimum wage.”

The deeper that one delves into ICE’s actions, the more that the government organization’s actions seem inconsistent. According to the organization’s website, “ICE’s primary mission is to promote homeland security and public safety through the criminal and civil enforcement of federal laws governing border control, customs, trade, and immigration.”

It’s unclear, however, how the organization’s recent moves against the employees of Chipotle are in any way consistent with its stated ends of promoting security and safety. It is similarly unclear that Chipotle was abusive  in its dealings with the undocumented workers that it unknowingly employed.

What is clear, however, is that ICE’s actions threaten the very employees whose working conditions it claims to defend.

Remember when the Prius first hit the market, and the D.C. Beltway authorities opened the HOV lanes to electric cars as an incentive to switch? In less than six months, so many urban elites traded in their trusty SUVs for hybrids that the carpool lanes were as bogged down as the rest of the highway.

Never one to be deterred, our nation’s capital is keeping things posh for hybrids. Last year D.C. installed its first public electric car charging station. Now, thanks to this month’s first private charging station in D.C., hybrid owners never have to rub elbows with gas guzzlers, or even with other hybrid drivers.

Here’s We Love DC’s report on the new station:

The ChargePoint units run $1,000-$2,000, and most garages that have a single ChargePoint can easily expand to add 8-10 stations without significant cost.  While they haven’t yet planned for that many at 425 Mass Ave, they’re hoping to see an uptick of electric car purchases by their residents in the coming years.  We spoke with one resident who’d happened upon today’s grand unveiling and she was incredibly positive, both about the building, and about the future of electric vehicles.  A law student at Georgetown University, she was ecstatic at the idea of one day owning a Tesla and using the charging station as soon as she’s paid off her student loans.

A charge from one of the ChargePoint stations will run you up to $5 (if your battery is mostly drained) to as little as $0.50 for just a little juice [Per our commenter below, this may not be correct pricing. We've asked for clarification from Car Charging group, as the prices above are just for the power, not for its distribution - Editor].  Currently, most electric cars have a range under 300 miles, which is comparable to the gas mileage I get out of my Jetta.  Of course, a tank of gas runs me close to $40, so the idea of being able to fill up for a scant $5 has me thinking there’s something to these beasties.

On hand to demonstrate the electric cars was Tesla Motors’ Shaun Philips, who offered free test rides to all of us, as well as limitless information about their Roadster product. Sure, that sports car might retail at $109,000 (look for a DC dealership at 1050 K Street in the not-too-distant future)…

Sounds great, and love the idea of a private apartment building offering innovative perks. But you have to admit: It’s a little silly that these cars are supposedly designed to herald a brighter future, and targeted only to the kind of yuppies weekend warriors that would pay to charge their cars in private.

Even the claims that hybrids are “environmentally friendly” seem dubious in light of how little research we’ve seen into how we’ll dispose of the tons and tons of discarded hybrid batteries slated to hit the landfills in a few years. I wrote at The Washington Examiner:

Electric cars are marketed as one way to make the future better for everyone. But with little research into what we’ll do with discarded batteries (and battery acids), and even less research into the economics of charging substantially higher prices for non-swank mid-sized sedans ostensibly designed to sell, electric cars are more the purview of the upper class than the people’s wagon designed to improve the everyman’s life.

I’d be hard pressed to trade my gas guzzler for a silent futuristic piece of plastic, but no doubt it’s sweet to avoid the everyman by replenishing your car at a private station! Let’s hear it for capitalism, posturing, and…

Oh yea. About those discarded car batteries. We’ll just start selling them to China packaged up with our debt. I’m sure it will be fine.

Image credit: frankh’s flickr photostream.

If you believe the “city of northern charm and southern efficiency” is geared solely toward imposing stupid, expensive directives on the rest of the country, think again–local D.C. government makes the feds look reasonable, measured, and intelligent in comparison. I mean, Marion Barry still serves on the city council.

Washington is also a town home to more glassy-eyed rail fanatics per capita than any other. The Washington Metro, the rail transit system that was presumably designed to serve wealthy suburban condo owners, is a notorious fiscal black hole. But the Metro system is controlled by the WMATA, a multi-jurisdictional regional transit authority, and not the city itself. Not wanting to be outdone by a bunch of Virginia and Maryland upstarts, D.C. decided to show WMATA a thing or two about absurdly wasteful transit spending–reintroducing streetcars in the District.

You remember streetcars, right? The antiquated 19th century transit technology that was supposedly murdered by the evil auto industry in the 1960s? Well, it’s been resurrected thanks to the persistent efforts of greensrailfans, and the bow-tie-wearing, criminal-employing Councilman Jim “The people of the District of Columbia want their trolleys back” Graham. To make things worse, officials are now seriously talking about forgoing fare collection on parts of the “$1.5 billion” (if only it would end up being this cheap when all is said and overrun) streetcar system:

“It is certainly possible that in certain areas of the city it would be free,” DDOT Director Gabe Klein tells WTOP.

“And we like that, because the point of this is to stimulate growth and move people between neighborhoods. So we are going to look at a structure where people feel comfortable hopping on and off, maybe many times in an hour.”

D.C. officials have closely studied the streetcar system in Portland, Ore. as a model for what to do in the nation’s capital. In Portland, riders who take trips in the “fareless square” do not have to pay for trips.

“In the downtown area, they make it free,” says Klein. “People literally hop on and hop off, sometimes at every stop. It’s great because it feels more like a people mover, than it does a bus or a streetcar.”

Keeping the cost low would encourage people to use the streetcars. [Emphasis added.]

Mr. Klein is certainly on the right track when he suggests that people might take advantage of a service more if they aren’t charged for use, but he should look up the definition of the word “free.” Something is not costless just because you’re robbing Peter to pay Paul. But Klein really goes off the rails when he proclaims Portland, Oregon’s “silent but deadlyMAX transit system as something the District should be watching and learning from.

Oregonian Randal O’Toole, economist and noted transit scholar, throws cold water on the notion that the Portland model is something to emulate:

Portland’s story of spending $90 million on a streetcar line to get $2.3 billion of development, or $57 million on an aerial tram to get $1 billion of development, sounds attractive to officials from other cities. It might not sound so attractive if Portland admitted that it really had to spend $665 million, in addition to the cost of the streetcar line and tram, not to mention 10-year tax waivers on at least $100 million of development, to get that $2.3 billion worth of development.

Streetcars might sound “fun” or “cool,” but there are two very important reasons why they were scrapped 50 years ago: streetcar lines are much more expensive to operate and maintain compared to buses, and they’re unpopular (not in the “do you like the idea of trolleys?” sense, but in terms of actual ridership). Not to mention the obvious traffic safety problems with nearly-unstoppable, 40-ton fixed-line vehicles sharing the roads with automobiles and cyclists.

One good thing to come out of this flurry of unrestrained public transportation spending is that the District Department of Transportation put online a database where you can see when and how the city is wasting taxpayer dollars on transit boondoggles.

Washington, DC city law states that “No loose herd or flock shall be driven or conducted in the District, except with a permit issued by the Chief of Police.” (See District of Columbia Municipal Regulations, Title 24, Chapter 9, Sec. 906.10.)

Many, many years ago, Washington was a pretty rural place. There were even farms in the Northwest and Southeast quadrants of the city. This was before the automobile, and well before the federal workforce climbed into the millions. But a lot of these old laws are still on the books. Nobody seems to have thought to get rid of them.

Other animal herding laws in DC include:

-No droves of mules or horses larger than six animals are allowed. (906.6)

-However, “Horned cattle may be led singly by a rope or halter through any of the streets in the District.” (906.8). That includes K Street, Constitution Avenue, and every other street in the District, great or small (Note to self: this might be worth trying someday).

-As with cars, the driving age for herds is 16. (906.12)

-A drove of sheep crossing a bridge must have at least six drovers. (906.4)

-It is illegal to “water, feed, or clean any horse, mule, cow, or other animal” within 15 feet of a fire hydrant. The same rule apples to cars.(906.13)

(Hat tip: Marc Scribner)

Fear is a terrorist’s only effective weapon. There are so few of them, and their attacks are so rare, that fear is all they have. Yet they win victory after victory. People and governments have an irrational tendency to over-react to rare but conspicuous threats. Here’s our latest loss:

[Washington, DC] Metro Transit Police will hold a “major anti-terrorism show of force” Tuesday during rush hour at one of the agency’s “busiest Metrorail station,” according to a media advisory released by the agency…

Metro said about 50 officers from several Metro Transit Police units will participate in the exercise, including anti-terrorism and K-9 explosives detection teams, bomb technicians, mobile and foot patrols.

As a daily user of the DC Metro, here’s hoping this security theater production happened as far away from my commute as possible.

(Hat tip: Megan McLaughlin)

At The Spectator, Alex Massie refers to snow to illustrate how over-reliance on government can hinder incentives for social cooperation.

Once upon a time and not so very long ago the general public would have cleared the pavements themselves. Indeed, it used to be thought only good manners and a mark of proper, considerate neighbourliness to clear your own patch of pavement. Alas, no longer. It seems as though we now expect councils to do that for us too.

The result? Pavements are not being cleared. This is less a mark of government failure than a collective, unfortunate, decision to rely on government well past the point at which councils can actually deliver a service. Consequently, this dependency demonstrates both a triumph of statism and its failure.

They do things differently in America. When I lived in Washington it was expected that you’d clear your own** bit of sidewalk. Result? The pavements were in better condition than seems to be the case in much, perhaps most, of Britain.

**And not just because the DC council is famously inept.

I’m also happy to note that here in D.C., snow removal has improved considerably over the last decade.

And then there was Mayor Marion S. Barry Jr. of Washington, who somehow survived his mishaps with bad weather. In 1987, Mr. Barry was in southern California attending the Super Bowl — getting a manicure and playing tennis at the Beverly Hills Hilton — when a winter storm buried the District of Columbia. The nation’s capital became the butt of ridicule. In 1996, Mr. Barry — who was elected to a fourth, nonconsecutive term in 1994 after serving a federal sentence on cocaine possession charges — was excoriated by residents after it took nearly a week to clear the streets of snow.

Retailers have traditionally provided free shopping bags to their customers as a courtesy. Washington, DC’s city government – known for being less than courteous – is now requiring stores to charge customers five cents for each plastic bag they use at checkout.

The tax is environmentally motivated. Since the city is acting so urgently on shopping bags, that implies that they must be the most urgent environmental threat facing DC. If that’s the case, then DC must be a veritable ecological paradise, or else its priorities are misplaced. One or the other must be true.

There were 84 unsolved murders in DC in 2009, by the way.

In lieu of plastic bags, the city is urging people to buy reusable cloth bags. But those have an environmental footprint nearly 100 times larger than a plastic bag, according to Sierra Club data. They have to be used many, many times before they cause any savings. They are also a haven for bacteria if not regularly washed. And washing them adds to their footprint.

Washington, DC has a lot of problems. Expensive but inferior schools, crime, violence, high taxes and spending – the list is long. The epidemic of plastic bags littering the streets is right at the bottom of that list. It should be prioritized accordingly. The regressive plastic bag tax should be repealed.

Having lived in the Washington, D.C., area for a decade, I’ve found following the goings-on of former D.C. Mayor and current city council member Marion Barry both fascinating and confusing. A skilled politician of dubious achievements, Barry oversaw what many consider one of the worst city administrations in American history, yet he remainis highly popular among his constituents.

Appropriately, Matt Labash’s profile of Marion Barry in The Weekly Standard shows a somewhat more complex figure than the now all-too-familiar caricature of Barry as a corrupt demagogue.

Barry-bashing has been a near ubiquitous sport, and approaching him in order to find holes in his stories is about as sporting as taking candy from a quadriplegic preemie. Rather, I was curious to take his measure as a human being, which many forget he still is, despite the caricatures and self-parodies. For 73 years, over 40 of them in public life, Barry has kept rearing up like a plastic varmint in a Whac-a-Mole game. No matter how many times he’s batted about the head with a mallet, he relentlessly reappears.

Labash shows the good:

Barry threw the city open to development the likes of which D.C. hadn’t seen before. He was so proactive that old staffers tell how, early in his mayoral tenure, he used to have weekly brainstorming brown-bag lunches with architects and developers and would fast-track formerly glacial construction-approval processes with Post-it notes saying “Good idea, do it!” When he assumed office in 1979, whole quadrants of the city were ghost towns, and there were streets untouched since they were torched in the ’68 riots.

During Barry’s first term, 70 new buildings were either started or completed, and millions of new square feet of downtown office space were added. Even Republicans, after rolling through their mental rolodex of Chris Rock crack-smoking jokes or using Barry as a handy excuse to deny D.C. statehood, sometimes recall the ’80s-era Barry with fondness. Even if there were accusations of untoward cronyism, he was a mayor you could do business with. “The one thing Barry fundamentally understood is that nobody–not the city, not the private sector–profits off a weed-strewn lot. In that way, he was a supply-sider,” says one.

And the bad.

In other ways, though, he was a raging redistributionist. “Some call it socialistic, some call it democratic,” Barry tells me. “I don’t go by labels, they don’t mean s– to me.” Figuring if the Poles and Italians could feather nests in Chicago and the Irish could dominate Boston, Barry ruthlessly insisted that all of his departments meet minority set-aside contracting quotas, up to 30 percent. At the same time, his knack for creating patronage jobs would’ve left Huey Long gaping in awe. At one point in the late ’80s, the city didn’t even know how many employees it had on its own payroll (an independent commission estimated there was one city worker for every 13 residents). By the end of Barry’s third term, shortly before the Vista bust, the size of the municipal payroll had swelled to 52,000– that’s 14,000 more taxpayer-funded jobs than Los Angeles, a city five times the size of D.C.

Barry, always intent on buffing the scratches out of his legacy, tells me that he didn’t just foster a black middle class in D.C., but also in neighboring Prince George’s County. He’s more right than he’d like to be. For much of the newly created black wealth fled the city, as they had a much better chance of enjoying their spoils without getting shot in the suburbs.

Labash interviewed Barry and people who know him extensively. He succeeds in getting to know Barry on his own terms. A great read; whole thing here.