Today's Post editorial on the actions of CM Graham should be seen as a peak into how the Council Member's pay-to-play political machine works, not as an isolated incident around a single Metro parcel. Whether it's building a park, a multi-million dollar city sponsored development project, closing schools or getting an ABC License the pay-to-play game is the same. Also related to this same lottery contact was the clever use of the legislative/budget process to enable internet gaming, to follow the quid pro quo of the Graham machine requires following closely a similar use of the budget process and emergency legislation to reward public resources to crony developers such as Lakritz Adler. During this same period, LaKritz Adler was recieving via the use of emergency legislation $2.0M in TIF financing to build a CVS on Georgia Ave. A project under normal circumstances which would have never qualified for a city sponsored TIF. Was this TIF a consolation prize in the struggle of a Graham backed team and a Fenty Admin backed team over this Metro prize? For the sake of a political education let's hope the Post keeps peeling back the onion.
Did Jim Graham try to undermine a Metro project?
OFFICIALS AT Banneker Ventures were thrilled when they learned in February 2008 that their company had won a competition to develop Metro-owned property on Florida Avenue NW. The general construction and contract management firm had beaten rival companies in an open procurement process for the retail and residential project. But when the proposal came before Metro on April 24, Jim Graham (D), the District’s representative on the transit agency’s board and a D.C. Council member whose Ward 1 would be home to the development, successfully moved to postpone action. Mr. Graham’s action warrants scrutiny.
Not long after that, he allegedly tried to pressure Banneker out of the Metro deal by linking it to his support for a separate bid by one of Banneker’s principals for the District’s lucrative lottery contract. What was Mr. Graham up to? On whose behalf was he advocating? And why was it that in both cases — the operation of D.C.’s lottery and the development of Metro land — the winning bidders ended up not doing the public’s business?
Offline 
Send Email