EDITORIAL/OPINION

Send Your Feedback, Questions or Concerns, Tips and Suggestions to editorial@georgetowner.com or call 202-338-4833

Empowering Women

Reviving Retail Madame Speaker, Tear Down This Wall

March is National Women’s Month, but that’s small comfort to the several million women who left the workforce since the pandemic was declared a year ago.

On top of the pay gap (yes, a woman still earns 82 cents for every dollar a man is paid), the motherhood penalty (moms earn less than dads and are penalized for caretaking responsibilities) and the preponderance of women, primarily of color, working essential, hourly wage or shift-work jobs, women’s economic, physical and emotional security has never been more precarious.

But there is some good news … at least for women in Washington. According to a recent WalletHub study ranking the best and worst states for women, we — those of us in the District — enjoy the third-highest ranking in economic and social wellbeing, the number-one position in median earnings, the highest number of voters (in 2016) and the second-lowest uninsured rates. D.C. was ranked the fifth-best state overall for women.

No surprise that blue states are more woman-friendly than red states, or that states with the lowest rates of life expectancy, graduation from high school and, sadly, highest levels of poverty are concentrated in the South and Southwest.

D.C. may not be an official state — yet. But we are fortunate to have women in leadership positions from the top levels of city government to grassroots neighborhood organizations, where women of all ages, ethnicities and educational backgrounds leverage their passions and lived experience to empower, inspire and work for the wellbeing of us all.

Long may they reign.

COVID-19 has not been kind to retail. We’ve all seen the pictures of shuttered shops and heard the stories of those whose jobs, dreams and security disappeared overnight.

Even before the Great Pandemic of 2020, Georgetown’s retail sector was contracting. Empty storefronts along Wisconsin and M were not only an eyesore but a drag on our spirit and economic well-being. Without our characteristic ambiance, who’d want to come here?

Don’t count us out yet. In this month’s cover story, Christopher Jones leads a tour d’horizon of the new retail landscape, highlighting the creative minds — business owners, developers, landlords and architects — working to bring about Georgetown’s commercial revival.

He interviewed the owners of Chaia Tacos, where whole foods are served with a side order of social justice, and the founders of Grace Street Collective, an incubator of unique, high-quality businesses — the kind for which Georgetown has always been known.

Our roving reporter also spoke with commercial developers to learn how they’re responding to the economics of the pandemic and how they hope to revive Georgetown’s storied vibe.

EastBanc’s Anthony and Philippe Lanier shared their “retail laboratory” approach of recruiting and supporting multiple startups in one vibrant marketplace (31M, where Brooks Brothers used to be, is one such venue).

Two more examples: Bob Elliott is experimenting with pop-up restaurants and John Asadoorian is eager to seed M Street with more family-owned stores, offering both cool merch and a memorable shopping experience.

We hear from Joe Sternlieb that the Georgetown Business Improvement District is looking to create a regional attraction to lure foot traffic to our streets and shops. Other plans are being drawn up for streateries, art installations and festivals.

Will all this activity meet Georgetown’s aesthetic standards? Architect Ankie Barnes tells Jones that a successful revitalization must balance the desire for modern solutions with the need to protect our historic streetscapes.

It’s exciting, yes. And it will be occasionally messy and inconvenient. But we can’t wait. A revitalized Georgetown benefits everyone.

What businesses would you like to see open in Georgetown?

YOUR OPINION MATTERS. Post your response. Facebook.com/TheGeorgetowner

The U.S. Capitol, surrounded by fencing and razor wire, on March 3. These protective measures have been in place since the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol by supporters of President Donald Trump. Photo by Jeff Malet.

BY ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

The following is D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton’s statement on the introduction of the No Fencing at the United States Capitol Complex Act on Feb. 11.

Today, I introduce the No Fencing at the United States Capitol Complex Act, which would prohibit the construction of new permanent fencing on the grounds of the United States Capitol complex. Since the insurrectionist attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, the Capitol complex has become an untraversable fortress surrounded by frightening fences capped with barbed wire, typical of authoritarian regimes.

In recent days, some officials, including the Acting Capitol Police Chief, have suggested that fencing become a permanent security feature of the Capitol complex. Although I agree that more needs to be done to protect the Capitol complex, the failure of Capitol security leaders to plan for the predictable and openly announced attack on the Capitol does not justify closing the complex from the public, to whom it belongs. We can and must maintain our commitment to security without sacrificing public access by using the least restrictive means necessary to address security.

The attack on the Capitol, which had little to do with the lack of permanent fencing, was the greatest intelligence and security failure in the history of our nation’s capital. There were countless security failures on January 6 that we can and must address, including: taking threats of extremist violence seriously at an earlier stage; blocking off the Capitol during high-profile and high-threat events, as is typically done, but was not done on January 6; manpower; and training.

Permanent fencing, which is incredibly imprecise, would not address these very real security lapses. It is more likely to keep out children, joggers and tourists than a coordinated attack on the Capitol. In fact, it is another form of security theater — it would make the Capitol “look” safe but mask the lack of state-of-the-art security measures that could actually prevent attacks in the future. Just in the past few days, security experts have already begun putting forward innovative ways to protect the Capitol while also protecting the values of openness and transparency, which are central to our democracy. We must foster that dialogue and welcome fresh ideas, not default to an archaic security strategy that humans invented over 10,000 years ago.

Permanent fencing would send an un-American message to the nation and the world, by transforming our democracy from one that is accessible and of the people to one that is exclusive and fearful of its own citizens. It would tell the world that the most powerful nation must rely on crude barriers for safety instead of state-of-theart intelligence and security protocols. The Capitol has welcomed First Amendment protests and demonstrations for centuries without becoming a fortress. The openness of the Capitol and our democracy is our strength, not a security weakness that needs to be rooted out. Any further consideration of permanent fencing is desperate, distasteful and disrespectful of our history and institutions.

Furthermore, we cannot forget that the Capitol complex does not exist in a vacuum. It is immediately surrounded by residential neighborhoods and local businesses, which form the heart of the District of Columbia. Permanent fencing would cause serious damage to the fabric of these communities. These residents and businesses have been more than understanding as their neighborhoods have turned into militarized zones. They have waited patiently as officers check their identification on their walk home and taken alternative routes when they have found blocked streets. Permanent fencing would infringe on their ability, as well as the general public’s ability, to enjoy the public spaces that define our nation’s capital.

Already, the distance between government and the people has grown, with trust in government at historic lows. We should not entrench that distance further by placing intimidating barriers between ourselves as public servants and the people we serve, especially when such barriers are neither effective nor necessary.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.