This edition of The Collins D.C. Council Report is dedicated (or as the RasTafari say, liv-icated) to the memory of my Informer colleague, James L. Wright Jr., whose death I learned about on the morning of the D.C. Council’s Dec. 2 legislative meeting.
More than a decade ago, when I started out as a stringer at this beloved publication, Wright was one of the senior reporters on the staff, alongside my mentor-colleague Barrington Salmon, the late Dorothy Rowley and others. His political roundups, which appeared in each edition of the paper, succinctly informed readers about the goings on of the John A. Wilson Building while solidifying his status as a juggernaut in the local reporting space.
Mr. Wright was an institution in himself and someone who laid the foundation for what would ultimately become The Collins D.C. Council Report. In some of our last interactions, he often encouraged me to take my investigative skills to the next level. I believe that, deep down, he knew about his transition and was preparing us to take on the reins.
I compile this report knowing that Mr. Wright gave his all to a cause very few are willing to take these days. May the words you’re about to read thoroughly inform you about the events of Dec. 2. We’re not done yet, and that is, in part, thanks to Mr. Wright and his fearless reporting.
Many thanks, comrade, for what you’ve done and will continue to do on the other side.
No Needs Assessment for Ranked Choice Voting — at Least for Now
In the days leading up to the council’s Dec. 2 legislative meeting, D.C. Councilmember Wendell Felder (D-Ward 7) expressed concerns about whether D.C. Board of Elections (DCBOE) is prepared for the rollout of ranked-choice voting (RCV) during the 2026 election season.
Such concerns inspired Felder’s introduction of emergency legislation that, if passed, would’ve compel DCBOE to conduct a needs assessment for ranked-choice voting. After much discussion, however, about whether Felder’s bill, titled the Board of Elections Ranked Choice Voting Needs Assessment Emergency Amendment Act of 2025, would incur costs, the Ward 7 council member withdrew the legislation altogether.
As Felder hinted in the council breakfast meeting preceding Tuesday’s legislative meeting, he doesn’t appear done with assessing DCBOE’s preparedness for an electrifying election season.
“I think there was a lot of questions that the Board of Elections couldn’t answer to me,” Felder told D.C. Councilmember Christina Henderson (I-At large) on Tuesday morning during an exchange where the former questioned if the ranked-choice voting would increase the number of independent council members on the council, perhaps in violation of the D.C. Home Rule Act.
As Felder had done in days past, he also touched on his exchange with DCBOE personnel during a Nov. 24 roundtable hosted by the council’s Committee on Executive Labor and Administration, telling his colleagues that it didn’t inspire his confidence in the agency’s ability to facilitate a ranked-choice voting system before June 16, 2026 primary.
“One of the things that they highlight is partially funded, but they have to roll out full implementation,” Felder said on Tuesday morning. “They don’t have the proper equipment. They also brought up concerns about things like staff overtime. All of those things are concerning to me.”
Last fall, nearly three of four District voters approved Initiative 83, a ballot measure centered on the implementation of a ranked-choice voting system and open primaries. During the last budget deliberation cycle, the council only funded the ranked-choice voting part of the measure.
Amid discussion about the voting system, some people, like D.C. Councilmember Anita Bonds (D-At large), questioned how voters living in marginalized communities would fare navigating a new voting system. Though ranked-choice voting proponents question the elder council member voracity for change, Bonds has emphasized to constituents and colleagues alike that, regardless of how anyone feels, D.C. will have ranked-choice voting next summer.
“I’ve tried my very best to remain neutral in the hearings and the public presentations, but I can tell you, if I had to gamble on this, I wouldn’t do it quite yet,” Bonds said on Tuesday. “They would need to do so much outreach, which hasn’t even been planned. The federal law requires that the outreach take place with these vulnerable populations and that concerns, even with the blind.”
For now, ranked-choice voting will take place without a needs assessment. Such news has given at least one local elected official some joy.
“The last-gasp effort to delay / stop RCV has failed,” U.S. Shadow Senator Ankit Jain (D-D.C.) wrote Tuesday afternoon on X, formerly known as Twitter. “It is now 100% official— RCV is coming to D.C. starting with the June primary! I’m so glad that D.C. voters get to move to an election system that gives us more voice and more choice.”
A Question of How to Supplement the Juvenile Curfew with Youth Programming
On its final reading, the D.C. Council approved the Juvenile Curfew Second Temporary Amendment Act with D.C. Council members Robert White (D-At large), Janeese Lewis George (D-Ward 4) and Brianne Nadeau (D-Ward 1) voting in opposition after White asked D.C. Council Chair Phil Mendelson to bring the legislation back up for reconsideration.
Moments before the council approved the legislation, the legislative body approved an amendment that D.C. Councilmember Brooke Pinto (D-Ward 2) introduced to limit the mayor’s authority to impose a juvenile curfew for no longer than 30 days.
The amendment also ensures that the temporary legislation expires on April 15, 2026, by which the council would’ve evaluated the mayor’s budgetary investments in youth programming.
“We have heard a lot of calls for the need to do more to support our young people in the city over the last several months and really over the last several years,” Pinto said during Tuesday’s legislative meeting. “And by April of next year, my hope is that we’ll have a better picture of both what the mayor has proposed in her budget and also what the council has done to move forward in many of these investments.”
In November, shortly after the first reading of the Juvenile Curfew Second Temporary Amendment Act, Pinto introduced her Prosper DC legislative package, which includes bills that: expand banking access to youth; connect young people to flexible, paid employment opportunities; and increase the age of eligibility for summer youth employment.
There’s also another bill that compels the D.C. Department of Parks and Recreation’s (DPR) creation of teen centers in each quadrant of the District.
While speaking with The Informer, Pinto said that, despite some successes, DPR has quite a ways to go in providing programming that thoroughly engages youth. As of this report’s publication, DPR hasn’t responded to The Informer’s initial inquiry about that particular aspect of Pinto’s Prosper DC Plan, titled the Teen Center Establishment Amendment Act of 2025.
Perhaps Pinto, and others, would have a chance to ask DPR Director Thennie Freeman about it during an upcoming roundtable conducted by Lewis George. During Tuesday’s council breakfast, Lewis George, chair of the council’s Committee on Facilities, encouraged her colleagues to participate in an upcoming roundtable where she aims to get to the bottom of how DPR could better support young people.
“I have a set of hearings that are listed,” Lewis George said. “I would love for colleagues to show up.”
D.C. Councilmember Charles Allen (D-Ward 6) counts among those eager to see what the Executive Office of the Mayor can create for young people in tandem with the juvenile curfew. During the breakfast, he told his colleagues that it’s best for the council to assess that so that they, and D.C. residents, are not caught up in the limbo of emergency juvenile curfew extensions.
“I just think it gives us the most amount of options available to make that decision and not end up with a[n] almost a year-long curfew effect without the benefits of the other elements that we think are important to address the issue,” Allen said.
The Battle for Recreation Center and Pool Funding in the Great Ward 8
The council struck down legislation that D.C. Councilmember Trayon White (D-Ward 8) introduced as part of an effort to spur the creation of pools in Ward 8.
The legislative body also compelled White to table a disapproval resolution aimed at stopping the reallocation of $7 million from the Anacostia pool replacement and Congress Heights Recreation modernization to the Southeast Tennis and Learning Center, an entity closely affiliated with Cora Masters Barry, widow of his mentor former D.C. Mayor Marion Barry.
The former first lady is also someone who supported White’s opponent, Mike Austin, in the special election that brought the council member back to the legislative body after being expelled in February.
“I do not agree with taking money from other locations because somebody has political influence and political connections, and everyday people are expressing to the government what they want to see happen in their community,” Ward 8 Councilmember White said on the dais. “There are football teams right now, including the Woodland Tigers, needing housing for their organization with over 500 kids. There are other football teams that don’t have no way to practice, and when it rains outside, they have to go inside or cancel practice.”
Last week, after announcing that she wouldn’t seek a fourth term, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser touted her investments in Ward 8, including recreation centers, a library, and career training centers. However, Ward 8 D.C. Councilmember White stood among the negligible group of public officials who either released neutral statements about the mayor, or criticized her record altogether, saying that “[f]or far too long, working-class and poor people have gotten the short end of the stick.”
Had White’s emergency legislation, titled the Sensible Pool Building Emergency Amendment Act, passed, it would’ve exempted natatoriums constructed in Ward 8 from net-zero building compliance standards.
In the moments before seven council members voted in opposition, the Ward 8 D.C. council member called the legislation, not only a matter of equity, but a matter of the Bowser administration’s commitment to following through on projects— specifically that for Congress Heights residents.
“The community always said that they wanted a pool in every meeting that I attended,” the Ward 8 council member said. “Recently, I learned that the pool was not included based on legislation that the council enacted to…ensure that there was no energy used that [superseded] the amount of energy consumption that was generated by the design building and that held back the project.”
White added that he had to rely on backup to get to the bottom of this conundrum.
“Based on the timeline, I remember that Councilwoman Janeese Lewis George asked [D.C. Department of General Services] and DPR how much was needed to ensure that they had a pool at Congress Heights, and the answer was $5 million. She then put an additional $5 million and took us up to $41 million for this one pool,” he continued. “Mind you, there’s no other recreation center in D.C. that has ever been spent $41 million and spent on, so it’s a large investment.”
Despite that large investment, White said the project never manifested.
“We had a meeting in Ward 8 last week at Rehoboth Church, and what was told there was not what was told today,” White said. “We were told that D.C. got denied three times, when in fact D.C. got denied two times and the last proposal to GBAC— which is the Green Building Advisory Board— was accepted, that included a pool. Now it’s a new narrative that we want a splash park, but the community never said they wanted a splash park.”
Though Lewis George empathized with Ward 8 Councilmember White’s insistence the Congress Heights community receives a pool, she, along with Council Chair Mendelson, At-large Councilmember White and Councilmembers Henderson, Allen, Bonds, and Matt Frumin (D-Ward 3) voted in opposition to his legislation.
D.C. Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie (I-At large) voted present, while Pinto who, just moments earlier, stood in solidarity with the Ward 8 D.C. council member, was noticeably absent from the vote.
As Lewis George explained on the dais, Ward 8 Councilmember White’s emergency legislation didn’t get to what she understood as the root of the issue.
“We were told DPR’s utilization data indicated the current indoor pools in the area are not highly utilized, and their community feedback process showed a preference for Splash Pad because there was a Splash Pad desert in that particular area, and there were nearby pools in the area with low utilization but also an opportunity for residents to utilize those four nearby pools,” Lewis George said. “So actually, it is not infeasible to design a pool with the standards of the GBAC. The executive did it. It was approved, and the Congress Heights pool wasn’t killed by the Green Building Advisory Council. It is a front to, again, undermine the Green Building Advisory Council as has been done time and time again.”
The D.C. Council Steps In to Modify Changes to Streatery Program
The council unanimously approved the Streatery Program Emergency Amendment Act of 2025, legislation that Councilmember Allen introduced to, among other things: reduce the fees for participation in the District’s Streatery program; establish a start date for the enforcement of guidelines; declare the local streatery policy; and authorize the Public Space Committee to grant waivers of certain program requirements.
For the Ward 6 council member, the emergency legislation became a matter of preserving a pandemic-era program that kept the local restaurant industry afloat.
“I think what we heard pretty consistently is when done right, people want to see rules and regulations so that if there’s a derelict or abandoned street eatery, get rid of that,” Allen said during the Tuesday council breakfast. “But for the ones that are working well, great certainty for that business to be able to make that work.”
Earlier this year, D.C. Department of Transportation (DDOT) announced new regulations and fees for a formerly free program that, during the pandemic, allowed restaurants to safely serve customers in outdoor settings.
Starting Dec. 1, restaurants are responsible for paying $20 per square foot, comply with location limits, and, in following new design mandates, pay for the demolition of old structures. Restaurant owners have since complained about tens of thousands in demolition fees and an “airy” design mandate that complicates year-round usage of streateries.
Allen’s legislation passed on Tuesday with a friendly amendment that D.C. Councilmember Brianne Nadeau (D-Ward 1) introduced to clarify that, in the transition for long-term implementation of streateries, the streateries located along 18th Street, between Kalorama Road and Columbia Road, will be preserved.
After much debate on the dais, the council also approved D.C. Councilmember Brooke Pinto’s amendment to: remove language giving the Old Georgetown Board considerable weight in streatery design recommendations and require streatery permit exemption holders to apply for permit renewal every two years.
At least one person— D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser— doesn’t support the council’s recent move. On Tuesday, she submitted a letter expressing her apprehension about legislation she said impedes on the D.C. government’s attempt to move beyond a public health emergency that’s come and gone.
“The District Department of Transportation worked closely with the Department of Buildings to create a permitting process that applies our building and safety standards to streateries, as well as requiring– for the first time– a fee for the use of public space,” Bowser’s letter read. “During the long public outreach and comment process, DDOT heard the need to balance the many demands on limited public space: from businesses looking to expand their commercial space to the ability of buses, pedestrians (especially those with mobility challenges or persons pushing strollers), cyclists, and emergency services to access roadways and sidewalks. DDOT developed and issued design and permitting requirements that struck the right balance; this emergency legislation simply ignores that process.”