Opinions
Our Business Matters: A year-end update
A look-back at the challenges and concerns of community businesses
The past nine months have provided this columnist the privilege of sharing observations, information and feature news profiles on some of the issues, challenges, people and perspectives originating with the local business community. The following is a special year-in-review update on several 2011 “Our Business Matters” topics.
A “scandal scarred” D.C. Council reverses vote on taxes by dropping its opposition to raising local income taxes, already among the very highest in the nation, with a new top rate hitting the small business community hard – allowing for yet another District government spending increase.
As the year comes to a close, the Council rushed last week to mask some of the stench emanating from the Wilson Building by approving a timid ethics bill after more than two months of discussion punctuated by a nine-hour federal raid and property seizure by IRS and FBI agents at the home of D.C. Council member Harry Thomas Jr. (D-Ward 5).
Meanwhile, criminal and ethical investigations into alleged improprieties by several elected officials drag on, while other Council members suffer the unabated suspicions of residents regarding potential wrongdoing or questionable ethical behavior – in total engulfing a majority of the Council as well as the mayor.
Earlier this month, D.C. Council legislation was introduced addressing taxicab confusions: inferior service, regulatory chaos. Overconfident taxi drivers, believing that their support of Mayor Vincent Gray’s successful 2010 campaign would lead to adoption of their call for a nearly doubling of fares, went ballistic when the D.C. Taxicab Commission instead recommended more modest increases, elimination of most surcharges – including for extra passengers, and a number of service improvements.
Local hospitality industry and business organizations, joined by the grassroots consumer group D.C. Taxi Watch organized by gay Dupont Circle Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner Jack Jacobson, led the opposition to the huge fare increases requested by drivers and demanded better service, including the ability to accept credit and debit card payments and the forced retirement of aged vehicles.
A hearing on the bill is expected in January. Even if passed, don’t expect to see implementation of service improvements for at least a year.
While the annual “Small Business Survival Index” will soon be issued for 2011, little suspense surrounds whether the District will again rank last among itself and all 50 states – detailing how D.C. small businesses face worst-in-nation obstacles. The release of this nationwide study will undoubtedly herald D.C.’s last place reign again this year – a dishonorable distinction held for as long as anyone can recall and disproportionately affecting the outsized percentage of lesbians and gays engaged in entrepreneurial activities.
D.C. Council member Mary Cheh’s “Scarlet Letter” legislation to post sporadic, outdated, meaningless and arbitrary “snapshot” health inspection “letter grades” at the entrances of all food service and hospitality establishments again languished in limbo with no pick-up of support among her colleagues. Reflective of the folly of this proposal by the Democratic Ward 3 Council member, the city’s meager number of inspectors remains insufficient to conduct timely regular inspections or fulfill required re-inspections.
Washington remained one of the very few locations reflecting on its D.C. bag tax: paper, plastic or puffery? Although neighboring Montgomery County, Maryland, institutes a mandatory fee next month, nearly all other jurisdictions across the country have rejected similar business mandates, some by voter referendum.
While retailer compliance remains a significant and serious problem, local consumers have resigned themselves to either paying the minor nuisance price of paper or plastic bag usage or toting around their own household bags. The city has discontinued its recent advertising campaign reminding residents that “the law remains in effect” and checkout clerks now often wait for a customer to volunteer whether they want a bag without needing to ask — except when serving befuddled visitors and tourists.
The last year saw little let-up in the usual shenanigans by neighborhood citizens associations, tiny cadres of random residents forming business licensing protest groups and many Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) members fighting local economic development, commercial projects and alcohol licensing applications. It became more apparent, however, that these squeaky wheels enjoy less support among their neighbors than ever before.
It became widely known in the Dupont Circle area that VIDA Fitness faces opposition by ‘provocateurs’ protesting a liquor license application for the rooftop pool and lounge atop the new U Street fitness center location that opened in mid-July. Prominent community businessman David von Storch was only days ago ultimately successful in acquiring an Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license — but not before suffering several hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees, expenses and lost revenue. The unique amenity will be available to neighborhood residents enjoying one of the sold-out pool memberships beginning April 1 upon the return of warm weather.
A 25-year D.C. entrepreneur, von Storch long ago became familiar with the business obstacles easily and often cavalierly posed by “an extraordinarily small number of people agitated by new development and change.” “The irony of this all,” he now says, “is that as much as the license protestants fought it, the first thing they will mention when selling their home will be its proximity to amenities such as a world-class fitness center, restaurants, nightlife and entertainment.”
A few blocks away, disappointment that a foreign government Chancery — replacing a gay-owned community bed-and-breakfast hobbled by operating restrictions urged by a small number of residents — paved over the front lawn and removed three towering trees underscored that Dupont denizens doth protest too much and illustrated the oftentimes unintended consequences following in the wake of neighborhood obstructionists.
For the record, the Chancery recently removed the concrete ground cover, illegal under the District’s applicable “public space” restrictions, at the urging of the U.S. State Department. No word yet on tree replacement.
In the same vein, Eric Hirshfield provided readers with a personal reflection of his business start-up experiences and participation in industry advocacy efforts regarding D.C. regulatory hurdles as the Duplex Diner pioneer hands over the keys to former bartender and new owner Kevin Lee at mid-year. Hirshfield detailed his experience with the exasperating and notorious so-called “Voluntary Agreement” process leading up to a 1998 opening and continuing operation.
The popular community venue enjoys the renewed affection of customer “stakeholders” under Lee’s stewardship, and the business has recently re-instituted a Sunday brunch. Hirshfield currently assists area businesses in navigating the arduous regulatory process as he examines potential commercial and residential development projects in his Adams Morgan neighborhood.
The highly successful second annual 17th St. Festival unites area to promote business in late September, doubling the number of attendees according to festival co-chair and coordinating sponsor Urban Neighborhood Alliance (UNA) vice president Stephen Rutgers. UNA hopes to continue to build alliances unifying Dupont Circle businesses and residents to overcome the legacy of bitter past regulatory battles, allowing the area to create a more favorable environment for enterprise success – such as that experienced to the more business-friendly east where the 14th and U streets ‘Arts District’ blossoms into more.
Despite the fact that D.C. gives ANCs ‘great weight’ on medical marijuana, the city continued a glacial pace toward implementing its uber-cautious and restricted program. Fear of a threatened federal crackdown resulting from President Obama’s assault on medical marijuana laws has not yet stopped the District from preparing to sometime in the next year issue business licenses for the small number of cultivation centers and dispensaries.
Although the D.C. marriage law engages fewer than predicted during the nearly two years since the initiation of marriage equality in the nation’s capital, minimizing the projected revenue benefit for local businesses and the city’s tax coffers, marriage between heterosexuals has certainly fallen out of favor. Barely half of American adults – a record low of only 51 percent – are currently married, continuing a long downward trend in marriage “market share” unrelated to economic cycles, according to a Pew Research Institute analysis of U.S. Census data released on Dec. 14.
2012 will present both usual and unique challenges and controversies affecting community business activities. A celebratory toast to the hardworking and dedicated purveyors of the amenities enhancing our shared cultural lives is appropriate as we enter the New Year.
Mark Lee is a local small business manager and long-time community business advocate. Reach him at [email protected].
Commentary
The boy they refused to forget
Jonathan David Muir Burgos released from Cuban prison after participating in protest
When the Washington Blade first reported the story of Jonathan David Muir Burgos, the news centered on a 16-year-old Cuban teenager who had been sent to prison after taking part in a public protest in Morón, Ciego de Ávila. At the time, the facts were straightforward. A minor had lost his freedom, and his case was beginning to attract attention beyond Cuba’s borders.
Today there is another fact that deserves to be recorded with the same rigor.
Jonathan is no longer in prison.
His release, confirmed by multiple news organizations, closes one chapter of a story that, for months, was followed by journalists, human rights organizations, religious communities, and countless individuals who refused to let his name disappear from public view. Each of them became part of a much larger effort to ensure that the imprisonment of a Cuban teenager would not fade into silence as the news cycle moved on.
That collective attention does not explain every decision that ultimately led to Jonathan’s release, and it would be irresponsible to suggest otherwise. Judicial processes are rarely shaped by a single factor. What can be said with certainty is that Jonathan’s story never disappeared. It continued to be documented, discussed and followed long after the initial headlines were published.
Behind every widely reported case there is a family living a reality that rarely appears in the news. In Jonathan’s case, there was a father who also serves as a Protestant pastor and who spent months speaking publicly about his son while asking others not to forget him. There was a mother enduring the uncertainty familiar to any parent separated from a child. There were classmates, friends, and neighbors waiting for the day when Jonathan would no longer be known as the teenager behind bars, but simply as the young man returning home.
The image of a prison gate opening often marks the end of a news story. In reality, it marks the beginning of something far more difficult. A teenager must resume an interrupted education, reconnect with friends, rebuild ordinary routines, and recover a sense of normalcy after months in confinement. Those experiences seldom become headlines, yet they are part of the true cost of imprisonment.
Jonathan’s release is therefore more than an update to a story previously reported. It is a reminder that public attention has value. Journalism matters because it documents. Human rights organizations matter because they investigate. Communities matter because they refuse indifference. Families matter because they continue to wait, even when the waiting becomes unbearable. None of these efforts should be viewed in isolation. Together they ensure that a person’s story does not disappear simply because time has passed.
Many people leave prison after being forgotten.
Jonathan David Muir Burgos walked out of prison knowing that, throughout those months, thousands of people had continued to speak his name, follow his case and hope for the day when this story could be told differently.
Today, that day has arrived.
Opinions
Is Pride over at the end of June?
A reminder that we must be vigilant, visible all year long
Pride month was first celebrated in June 1970, one year after the Stonewall Riots of 1969. Pride month commemorates the Stonewall Riots, which occurred on June 28, 1969, at the Stonewall Inn in New York City’s Greenwich Village. The first organized Pride marches were held on June 28, 1970, in New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, marking the first anniversary of the Stonewall Riots.
In June 2000, President Bill Clinton officially designated June as Gay and Lesbian Pride Month, and in 2009, President Barack Obama updated the designation to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month, recognizing the contributions and struggles of the LGBTQ community. We have fought a long time to be able to be open and out. Activists since Stonewall have fought so we can live with the promise of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as promised in the Declaration of Independence. We just want to be recognized, and accepted, for who we were born as, or for who we are.
For me, and so many others, Pride is not only something we celebrate for the month of June, but we celebrate it all year long, for our whole lives. I am not denigrating the month of June celebrations. They are important, and bring visibility to our community. The diversity represented in D.C. Pride is wonderful. There is Trans Pride, Black Pride, youth Pride, among other events. We all have one thing in common, and just want to live our lives in peace. We want to enjoy our families, the ones we were born into, and those we choose. We want a good job, good friends, and good health, like everyone else. But because we are still seen as ‘different’ by so many, we have had to fight for our rights, and ask the government to grant them. When marriage laws were first promulgated, they didn’t include us, we had to fight for marriage equality. When healthcare is given to everyone, it was denied to trans people, and we have to fight for the government’s approval. When government gave the right to others for jobs, and housing, we were often denied. We still have no guarantees for either in 27 states. These fights go on.
I recognize we were not the only ones who had to fight for our rights. This country was founded by white Christian men, and they didn’t offer the rights they guaranteed themselves, to anyone else. They discriminated against women, Black people, and so many others, as they have discriminated against the LGBTQ community. So, we all had to fight for our rights, and today, are all still fighting for them.
While they did not mention religion, it was mentioned in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This clause has been interpreted to mean the government cannot favor one religion over another, or establish a national religion, thereby ensuring a degree of separation between religious institutions and government.
It is sick, very sick, that today, we are faced with a lying felon in the White House, who once again is sanctioning discrimination against every group that is not white, Christian men. Through his attack on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, he has set the fight for equality for all back a couple of hundred years. Nowhere can it be seen more clearly than in the Department of Defense where his stooge, Pete Hegseth, is trying to fire, and in any way he can, rid the military of women, Black service members, and members of the LGBTQ community. He is doing it so blatantly no one can deny it is happening. The felon is doing this across the government, and coercing those in the private sector to do the same.
So, in the month of June, here in D.C., in the home of our federal government, and in front of the people’s house, the White House, we in the LGBTQ community are all out. We share our parade, our festival, our parties, our experiences, our friends and lovers, husbands and wives, in public. We do so, and demand, that we can do it all year long, without being afraid. We do it so those who have yet to come out — young people maybe living in rural Virginia, or rural Maryland, those who still feel unsafe coming out — know there is a large community here who will welcome them with open arms and who will support them if their families and community don’t. We do it so they see they have heroes to emulate and can have a positive vision of their future.
So, we celebrate Pride in June, so we can celebrate our pride in who we are, all year long.
Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.
Opinions
Administration must stop targeting LGBTQ kids
Trump is doing all he can to harm trans students
I’m a gay man, I’m a graduate student, here is why I’m afraid of what the Trump administration is doing with the Office of Civil Rights.
I consider myself lucky to have grown up as a gay man in the time that I did. As a millennial, I came of age at the tail end of when it was still almost entirely socially unacceptable to be gay. That decision, 17 years ago, has defined much of my life since. While it is nowhere near perfect, I am mostly happy with the current times as a gay man, though I often lament for how my trans brothers and sisters are treated.
That’s why I’m so terrified with some of the moves the Trump administration has made, especially most recently with its rescission of Title IX provisions. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 is a landmark civil rights law that prevents any school or education program from discriminating on the basis of sex if they receive federal funding. It is a funding pact that effectively remodeled the American education landscape, providing equal opportunity for male and female athletes, outlawing discriminatory admissions practices, ensuring pregnant people have accommodations on campuses, and finally compelling schools to address and investigate sexual assault or harrassment in schools. In short, Title IX exists to create gender and sex based equity primarily in schools that receive federal funding; schools found to have been routinely violating this pact are subject to penalties, including even losing federal funding.
Recently, K-12 Dive reported that the Department of Education rescinded the Title IX provisions that established anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ students. In principle, the provisions barred discrimination against LGBTQ+ students in educational facilities that receive federal funding. Going by the Department’s public statements, Education Secretary Linda McMahon believes that these provisions, which were advanced by the past two Democratic administrations “distorted the law to police discrimination on the basis of ‘gender identity.’”
Essentially, the Trump administration is signaling its inclination to withhold student loans, the lifeblood of higher education finance, from schools that don’t make life miserable for trans students. The administration’s desire to turn back the clock is a real slap in the face of my community, and the activists who fought fiercely for acceptance, protection, and the recognition of gay rights. Beyond the usual anti-queer, right wing slop, this is an indicator that the administration is fundamentally trying to erase the queer identity. This will have unequivocally bleak effects on queer youth.
A bit of background might help. In 2019, the Supreme Court made a landmark employment law ruling in Bostock v Clayton County, which held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The plain text of Title VII only protects against discrimination on the basis of “sex,” but in Bostock, the court found that to be a gay employee requires first being a man, and to be a lesbian employee requires first being a woman. Likewise, to be discriminated against for trans or non-binary identity is to be discriminated against because your gender identity does not match your birth sex. Thus, the court held that workplace discrimination against LGBTQ identities are necessarily forms of sex discrimination, so protections for LGBTQ+ people in the workplace should be read into Title VII’s existing language.
This landmark decision was one of the biggest victories for advocates for LGBTQ employees in more than 50 years. Trump appointee Justice Neil Gorsuch even wrote for the majority that “an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law,” showing how patently unfair the state of LGBTQ employment was prior to the ruling. Personally, I have navigated so many spaces in fear of what could happen to me if anyone found out that I’m gay, but since Bostock, I’ve been so much more at ease.
But Bostock only considered Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the section that prohibits discrimination in employment. It didn’t consider Title IX, which prohibits discrimination at colleges and universities that receive federal funding, even though both Title VII and Title IX are parts of the same statute. As a result, Bostock only prohibited homophobia and transphobia in employment practices, not on college campuses.
Early in his administration, President Joe Biden signed an executive order in hopes of rectifying that limitation. He directed heads of federal agencies to review workforce actions to ensure that departments were complying with the Bostock rule – essentially, even though Bostock only requires anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ people in employment, Biden established a national policy of voluntarily extending the same anti-discrimination protections into other parts of American life governed by the Civil Rights Act.
As part of that effort, the Department of Justice issued a memorandum instructing federal agencies to apply Bostock to both Title VII and Title IX (the latter of course is enforced by the Office of Civil Rights in the Education Department). Later, in 2024, the Department of Education amended Title IX regulations to explicitly protect LGBTQ people from discrimination in federally funded buildings (most obviously schools).
The result of all these legal technicalities is that under the Biden rules, OCR must protect trans students who want to use the bathroom of their choice; a gay student cannot be discriminated against for being gay; and most importantly, a student cannot be rejected from a school, or expelled, for simply being who they are.
This small change is actually revolutionary for LGBTQ+ students. Beyond the fact that the second leading cause of death among LGBTQ youth is suicide, queer kids are twice as likely to be called names, verbally harassed, or physically assaulted. This often leads to increased substance abuse, self-harm, chronic absenteeism, and poor academic performance. With younger people coming out earlier than ever, it is critically important that we ensure we are protecting our queer youth.
The administration wants society to backslide. They want these kids to face discrimination. Never mind that one of Trump’s own Supreme Court picks wrote the majority opinion in Bostock, he and his cronies think it is perfectly fine for LGBTQ students to face harassment because they (falsely) claim the Biden administration had a warped interpretation ofBostock. After all, this is the same administration that cut funding to the 988 suicide hotline, banned trans people from serving in the military, and systematically weaponizes federal law against trans people across the country.
Republican-led states are clearly treating this as an opportunity to declare war on queer students as well. In May, South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster signed the Student Physical Privacy Act which mandates “multi-person facilities be designated for use by one sex at a time, defined by biological sex at birth. It also requires schools and colleges to provide single-user restrooms or changing spaces for students who request them.” In practice, trans students in South Carolina are basically relegated to port-a-potties. State Sen. Jason Elliot of Green said, “[T]he bill would allow the use of a portable restroom facility, if necessary, to meet that need [for a trans student]. So it’s not going to be an overly burdensome financial responsibility on K-12 schools or colleges or universities.” Rather than address the Palmetto state’s biggest actual policy issues like cost of living, health care accessibility, poor response to extreme weather events, dependency on tourism and a state graduation rate of less than 85%, they choose to attack trans kids, which again will only exacerbate the latter of these problems.
As a gay man, I find this troubling and deeply demoralizing. The second Trump administration is doing everything in its power to harm an already deeply marginalized community. Sending signals to state governments as well means Americans are rolling back the years to a time in which young LGBTQ people were fearful to be who they are. It’s the younger generations who are going to feel the immediate effects of these policies – even if a future Democratic administration reinstates the Biden-era policies, you only get the four years of high school or college once. If your time as a young person coincides with this administration and its bigotry, that can leave an indelible mark on your life and understanding of yourself in this country.
Am I protected as an adult? Well, yes, but as an educational policy wonk and gay man, I fear for younger queer people who just want to live authentically. The next Democratic administration must make reversing these changes to Title IX a priority. Any Democrat who claims to care about queer people, must ensure that these students are protected.
Chris Lewis is deputy research director of the Revolving Door Project.

