When the D.C. Council resumes business in the fall, it will be without Doni Crawford, the interim council member who lost her bid to finish out the rest of her former boss’ council term.
During the council’s last legislative meeting before summer recess, a teary-eyed Crawford received her flowers— literally and figuratively— before thanking the members of her team and commenting on what she called the experience of a lifetime.
“This has been my favorite job thus far,” Crawford said on the afternoon of July 14. “I’ve enjoyed it as a staffer, and now I’ve had the pleasure of doing it as a member. I don’t want it to stop, but unfortunately it has to end this week, and I thank you all for your words, and I will keep your words close to my heart when I’m reflecting on this time as a member in the District of Columbia representing 700,000 people.”
Earlier this year, upon then-At-large D.C. Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie’s resignation, D.C. Council Chair Phil Mendelson (D) selected Crawford, a McDuffie staffer, to serve a portion of the former council member’s term.
Crawford, whose background included a stint as a policy analyst, counted among nearly three dozen applicants. As interim council member, she introduced four bills and weighed in on policy matters during committee and legislative meetings. Most recently, during the budget deliberation cycle, she and Mendelson shaped a Budget Support Act subtitle related to RFK campus.
Crawford also counted among those who crafted the District’s response to the so-called teen takeovers. As one of her council colleagues recounted, Crawford’s expertise, and fervor for equity, placed her in front of D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) for an exchange of words, and ultimately the passage of an amendment to the permanent legislation.
“I asked folks in the mayor’s office where you stood, and they said ‘She was in a meeting for an hour and a half with the mayor, where the mayor pounded on her on this issue, and she didn’t move,’” Ward 3 D.C. Councilmember Matt Frumin said to Crawford on July 14. “We were on different sides, but I did think ‘Props to her,’ ….brand new in the position, and you held your ground.”
Earlier this year, Crawford, then a newly-minted council member, threw her hat in the ring for a special election to determine who would serve the remainder of McDuffie’s term, which ends on Jan. 2, 2027. On June 16, she lost to former D.C. council member Elissa Silverman, who McDuffie defeated four years prior.
In that race, Crawford and fellow candidate, D.C. State Board of Education (SBOE) President Jacque Patterson, entered a cross endorsement. Patterson has since launched another bid for the independent at-large seat in 2027.
While all 12 of Crawford’s colleagues on July 14 spoke to the now-former council member’s penchant for collaboration, intellectual curiosity, and passion for equity, it was D.C. Council members Wendell Felder (D-Ward 7) and Trayon White (D-Ward 8) who directly encouraged the young politico to give the electoral process another go.
White made his point with a trip down memory lane.
“I worked on Robert White’s first campaign, and he lost, and now he’s here….a Democratic nominee for Congress. I remember when Janeese Lewis George ran in 2016, she lost, and she’s the Democratic nominee for mayor for Washington, D.C.,” Ward 8 D.C. Councilmember Trayon White said. “Phil Mendelson.. in 1998. He lost. Matt Frumin right beside you, so you can lean on him…I’m as Ward 8 as it comes, and my first race, I lost, and so if this is something you really have a heart to do, pray about it. Come back and fight for….whatever it is you want to do.”
The D.C. Council to Explore Changes to Ballot Initiative Approval Process in the Fall
In the countdown to summer recess, the D.C. Council conducted a bevy of meetings, including an additional legislative meeting on July 14 that focused on, among other things, a legislative response to ticket scalping and the development of Hill East.
Council members however, decided to table a vote on two bills, one intended to rectify an unforeseen effect of ranked-choice voting, and the other tackling a key element of the ballot initiative approval process.
“The single subject rule is for sure one of the most confusing issues when we talk about the initiative process,” D.C. Councilmember Anita Bonds (D-At large) said during the council’s Committee of the Whole meeting on July 14 in reference to her bill, titled the Fair Initiatives Lend Transparency to Every Resident Amendment Act.
In its current form, the Fair Initiatives Lend Transparency to Every Resident Amendment Act requires the completion of a fiscal impact statement by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer before the D.C. Board of Elections (DCBOE) designates the proposed initiative as proper subject matter; and the expansion of the timeline for advisory opinions and objections to 30 days, rather than five and 10 days, respectively.
Most notably, the legislation also requires that each ballot initiative presents one subject at a time.
During the Committee of the Whole meeting, the council approved an amendment by Mendelson specifying “one subject” as provisions related to a singular purpose, not just the same topic matter. Moments before, while on the dais, Bonds cited Initiative 83, which brought ranked-choice voting and semi-open primaries to the District, as inspiration for these efforts.
“We at the council ended up funding one part of one of our initiatives while not funding the other part of the initiative until a later date,” Bonds said. “Voters have to make an all or nothing choice between the two ideas, and that really has generated confusion.”
Other parts of the legislation that raised eyebrows among council members require petition circulators to register in person at DCBOE headquarters and wear badges while engaging residents.
“So currently, if you are a candidate, you can hire people to collect signatures for you, and they don’t have to wear a sticker or a badge,” D.C. Councilmember Charles Allen (D-Ward 6) said during the Committee of the Whole meeting. “We’re curious about how that would be enforceable. So there’s many elements around this that I think would actually have a chilling effect on our ability to go through a proper ballot initiative process and for residents to do that.”
The first reading of Fair Initiatives Lend Transparency to Every Resident Amendment Act is scheduled for Sept. 22. Per summer recess rules later approved by the council, Bonds will conduct three meetings to gather feedback to determine amendments.
In 2022, District voters approved Initiative 82, which supports the incremental increase of the tipped minimum wage to match the minimum wage of non-tipped workers. Two years later, Initiative 83, placed on the ballot in support of ranked-choice voting and semi-open primaries, garnered nearly three-fourths of the vote.
On the path to Initiative 83’s victory, and ultimately its implementation, Democratic Party officials and council members alike raised concerns about the presence of two subjects on the ballot initiative, and the use of public dollars, despite a provision of the ballot initiative law stressing that approved initiatives not incur funds.
While speaking to the press earlier in the week, Mendelson, an ardent supporter of a revamp, weighed in on the latter point.
“That’s been reinterpreted in recent years, so the bill could cost a lot of money, and as long as it has language in it that says, ‘Well, the council will have to pay for investment or increase that, then subject to appropriation,’ then it doesn’t have a budgetary impact,” Mendelson said. “ I think that’s a slight hint, if you will,[that] if the proposal costs $5 million to implement and [is]subject to appropriation, it still costs $5 million to implement, and so we’re seeing more initiatives now that have a cost and therefore put pressure on the council to fund it.”
With Passage of Resolution, Phase II of Hill East Development is a Go
The council approved the Hill East Phase II Bundle 2 Disposition Term Sheet Amendment Approval Resolution of 2026, legislation that adjusts the agreed-upon terms for the next stage in the development of what was formerly known as Reservation 13.
Provisions of the resolution include: the construction of a public park on Parcel E of the land to be leased to the developer for 25 years, and the extension of each parcel’s development timeline from 30 months to 32 months, starting at the date of the project’s commencement.
Mendelson voted in opposition, while Allen and D.C. Councilmember Robert White (D-At large) voted “present.”
“At one point they said they were building a park, now they’re not, we are, so I’m anxious around a promise that they’re going to do something on this,” Allen told Frumin, in reference to Blue Skye Development, Donatelli Development and R13 Community Partners, during the council’s July 14 legislative meeting. “It’s an important project, it needs to move forward, but I also am aware that $35 million in capital spending on streets and parks is $35 million that we’re not spending somewhere else for other very important projects, be it Ward 7 or elsewhere.”
The Hill East Master Plan, approved by the council in 2002, outlines the path of Hill East’s transformation to a mixed-use waterfront community that connects the Hill East neighborhood to the Anacostia River.
Phase I, just steps from Stadium-Armory Metro Station, focused on the completion of a luxury market rate apartment building known as Park Kennedy and permanent supportive housing named The Ethel. Phase II, soon to be in effect thanks to the recently approved resolution, includes, not only the development of the park and accompanying playground, but what’s anticipated to be more than 1,000 units of affordable and middle-income housing.
“If this project does not move forward, then we have another situation in Ward 7 where a project was stalled, which means that neighbors will have to go outside their communities and have access to neighborhood serving amenities,” Felder said during the council’s Committee of the Whole meeting on July 14. “We cannot continue to be a ward that is filled only with residential. We want grocery stores. We want hotels. We want sit-down restaurants. And I am confident that by supporting this project, we prevent that from happening.”
As Frumin, chair of the council’s Committee on Human Services explained, several factors necessitated the revision of the term sheet.
“Tight capital and rising construction costs have made it difficult for the developer to proceed under the original term sheet,” Frumin said hours earlier during the council’s Committee of the Whole meeting, “The [human services] committee found the terms of this amendment to be appropriate and narrowly tailored. There had been some conversation about whether or not there had been a PUD [planned use development] on this matter. There had not. Any zoning review will happen after the approval of this resolution.”
The Hill East Phase II resolution sparked debate during the council’s breakfast meeting, mainly due to what Mendelson called a penchant for developers prolonging the completion of projects to the detriment of community members.
At points throughout the breakfast, Felder questioned whether the council chair would have such concerns about development projects in western, more affluent parts of the District. He later continued his crusade for Ward 7, calling the Hill East Phase II resolution a viable means of enhancing that community in a manner equitable to what RFK Campus will receive.
“Now is the time to invest in neighborhoods that generate neighborhood-serving amenities,” Felder said. “I urge my colleagues to support this as well. Yesterday’s price is not today’s price.”
For decades, Hill East, which includes the former D.C. General Hospital and Harriet Tubman Women’s Shelter, attracted some foot traffic due to its proximity to the Armory and what was then an active RFK Stadium. In recent years, especially with the departure of D.C. United, not so much. This was even with the erection of a skate park, farmer’s markets, and other activities.
In 2020, amid the release of a comprehensive plan and redistricting that brought Hill East into Ward 7, conversation once again sparked about the potential for economic activity. On July 14, that discussion persisted outside of the John A. Wilson Building when former D.C. council member Yvette Alexander took to social media and questioned Mendelson’s apprehension.
Alexander would later tell The Informer that it’s in the District’s best interest to assist in Hill East’s development.
“Developers are in it for the business too [so] the city has to meet developers halfway,” Alexander told The Informer. “This is an opportunity for more density, affordable housing, and growth especially with the new stadium. There’s plans for a hotel, retail, restaurants and job opportunities, and after the development, home ownership and more affordable housing.”
D.C. Council Finalizes Ticket Sale Legislation
On its second reading, the D.C. Council unanimously approved the Restricting Egregious Scalping Against Live Entertainment Amendment Act, also known as the RESALE Act, bringing the legislative body one step closer to combatting ticket scalping and speculative pricing.
Once enacted, the bill: caps the price of tickets sold on secondary markets; bans the sale of speculative tickets, lays out a refund policy and requires larger ticket resellers to register with the D.C. Department of Licensing and Consumer Protection under rules set by the mayor.
“This is, without a doubt, the most pro-fan, pro-consumer piece of legislation in the country,” said Allen, who introduced the bill. “There is so much money being made scooping up tickets and reselling them for a lot, lot more. It has become so pervasive, just so expected, that we don’t even realize how badly we’re all being ripped off.”
The legislation includes an amendment by D.C. Councilmember Brooke Pinto (D-Ward 2) striking a provision allowing the mayor to regulate fees in the primary market. The council also unanimously approved an amendment by Allen, and D.C. Council members Christina Henderson (D-At large) and Brianne Nadeau (D-Ward 1), which clarifies that surveillance pricing prohibitions don’t apply to price and fee reductions based on membership.
Pinto, whose jurisdiction includes Gallery Place-Chinatown and other portions of downtown, called her amendment pivotal in keeping the District attractive to members of the entertainment ecosystem.
“Our local District venues have been very clear that these fees are not incidental. They are part of the core business model that artists and promoters rely on when deciding where to book events, and the fees generally go to our local venues,” Pinto said. “Many venues make contracts with their ticketing platforms that are three years long, and that allows them to get an advance on the money that will be made so they can continue to maintain their venues, which is so important to our entire economy and our culture here in Washington, D.C.”
Last month, the council (with the exception of an absent At-large D.C. Councilmember White) approved the bill on the first reading with an amendment by Allen and Henderson prohibiting surveillance-based price discrimination, setting the cap on resale tickets at no higher than 10% of the original price and allowing the second market platform provider to levy a fee no higher than 10%.
In what would later set the stage for future developments, Allen and Henderson’s amendment also allowed the mayor, one year after implementation of the law, to adjust the price cap at 0 to 20% of the original ticket price and the fee cap between 5 to 20% of that amount.
In the leadup to the first reading of the RESALE Act, there was speculation about whether the council would delay the second reading until after summer recess, during which vendors, artists and consumers would still have to bear the burden of deceptive ticketing practices. Shortly after the June 30 meeting, Nadeau conducted meetings with Monumental Sports & Entertainment, IMP Concerts and other venues, which, according to a council staffer familiar with the situation, highlighted vendors’ anxiety about the mayor having control of fees on the primary market.
Even so, Nadeau and D.C. Councilmember Zachary Parker (D-Ward 5) voted in opposition to Pinto’s amendment on July 14. In his remarks, Parker expressed support for what he called safeguards against price gouging on the primary market.
“I am concerned, though, that by the amendment removing the authority to cap fees in the primary ticket market while leaving restrictions on the secondary market,” Parker said, “which I believe we should be doing, it creates an uneven regulatory framework that only empowers the giants in the primary market, who are often Ticketmaster and Live Nation.”
Earlier this year, D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb secured a $9.9 million settlement that Live Nation, found to be in collusion with TicketMaster as a monopoly, will pay mostly via refunds to consumers. This is in the aftermath of an investigation highlighting the entertainment agency’s penchant for: hiding the full price of tickets until the end of a long purchase process, and compelling ticket purchases with countdown timers and misleading pop-ups warning about fast-selling tickets.
In 2024, Schwalb filed a lawsuit against secondary market ticket seller StubHub for what his office described as unfair and deceptive practices, including: hiding mandatory fees from consumers until the end of a lengthy purchase process; and failing to add information about the purpose of the fees and how they are calculated.
“This is no accident—StubHub intentionally hides the true price to boost profits at its customers’ expense,” Schwalb said in a statement. “The District is home to one of the nation’s largest and most vibrant live entertainment scenes, and StubHub’s predatory tactics disproportionately harm District residents. That is why today we’re suing to end StubHub’s exploitative pricing scheme.”
Last fall, venue managers submitted council testimony detailing how consumers often showed up to shows with fake tickets. They also mentioned instances when tickets were advertised for seats that didn’t exist, while resellers utilized artificial intelligence to buy primary market tickets in bulk and increase the prices on the secondary market.
As a historic venue told The Informer, the RESALE goes a long way in stopping the practice of speculative pricing, where ticket resellers list tickets on their platforms at prices significantly higher than what vendors offer, oftentimes before the release of the actual ticket.
“We are optimistic that more transparency from ticket sellers will be beneficial in strengthening trust between venues and their patrons,” a representative of Arena Stage said in an email. “We believe clarification from and restrictions imposed by the RESALE Act will help venues protect themselves when attendees feel coerced into needing to purchase their tickets from a second-hand site.”
Since 2023, Arena Stage has counted among those who’ve suffered from speculative pricing, more so than ticket scalping. As the representative told The Informer, the scheme has been damaging to the nonprofit venue’s reputation.
“With these websites allowed to operate, we have received an exorbitant number of fraudulent chargeback filings that have had a negative financial impact on our institution,” the Arena Stage representative said.
As the RESALE Act makes its way to Bowser, a key qualm for Arena Stage lies in the $10,000 maximum penalty fee, which they say isn’t strong enough of a deterrent.
The nonprofit theater company also pointed out how the council could’ve gone further in appreciating, not only the special way in which ticket scalping and resale affects them and similar venues, but how, by virtue of their size and lack of resources, they might not be able to carry out provisions of the legislation.
“Many organizations do not have the financial resources or staffing needed to implement or maintain the robust technological capabilities required in the proposed legislation,” the Arena Stage representative said. “We believe it would be more beneficial to the objective of the bill to aim to restrict the mentioned ‘secondary ticket exchange’ platforms, as these sites are where most of the price gouging and fake ticket sales can go unchecked.”
Labor Leaders and Clergy Stand Up against Autonomous Vehicle Legislation
On the day preceding the council’s additional legislative meeting, Allen and other members of the council’s Committee on Transportation and the Environment had their hands full with a public hearing about autonomous vehicles that attracted those who are concerned about decimation of ride-share and food delivery jobs.
“If we allow this to happen in our cities along the east coast, that is a job killer,” said Jaime Contreras, executive vice president of SEIU 32BJ, about the Autonomous Vehicle Deployment Authorization Amendment Act.
In May, Allen introduced the Autonomous Vehicle Deployment Authorization Amendment Act with D.C. Council members Brooke Pinto (D-Ward 2) and Matt Frumin (D-Ward 3). This legislation, Allen told The Informer last month, came out of previously conducted hearings, conversations with autonomous driving companies and Allen’s request for a D.C. Department of Transportation (DDOT) study.
If approved in its current form, the legislation would: establish a commercial AV program within DDOT to issue permits and monitor compliance; create a phased timeline for commercial AV deployment; establish rules for autonomous driving features; invest in public transit infrastructure and safety measures; support the education, vocational training and workforce development of rideshare drivers; and clarify AV traffic safety and liability laws.
Even with provisions intended to prepare rideshare drivers for the transition, Contreras, whose constituency includes service workers who moonlight as rideshare drivers and food delivery personnel, said he wants to see the legislation fail.
“It’s going to have a NAFTA-type impact on working-class people and communities,” Contreras said in reference to the North America trade agreement that spurred manufacturing job loss in the 1990s. “Working people are already struggling working two and three jobs, and now you’re going to have autonomus vehicles in the city that are going to eliminate so many jobs that people need.”
Those who testified before the council’s Committee on Transportation and the Environment on July 13 included: Ward 2 SBOE Representative Allister Chang, the DC Multimodal Accessibility Advisory Council, American Property Casualty Insurance Association, and longtime D.C. resident Todd O’Boyle. Each person and entity raised points about economic development, education, wheelchair accessibility, on who liability falls, and how best to mitigate fees.
However, it was Contreras, who spoke about what he called the elephant in the room. On July 13, shortly before his appearance before the committee, he joined several other labor organizers on the steps of the John A. Wilson Building. That’s where they spoke in solidarity with ride-share workers, delivery drivers, and other parties feared to be replaced by autonomous vehicles.
One of those ride-share drivers, Helen Raynor-Hughes, said her jobs have supplemented her income and allowed her to make a way for her children. She questioned why the government, with the decrease in public assistance, would want to eliminate a source of income for the District’s marginalized.
“They always claim that a person who needs medical assistance or food stamps wants handouts. It’s just a lot of people trying to make ends meet, Raynor-Hughes told The Informer. “If we have people out here that’s like, ‘Hey, let me just get on this app and drive for a few hours. I can go ahead and make the money to take care of this,’ they don’t have to rely on somebody to send money every month.”
Also on the steps of the Wilson Building that morning were members of National Baptist Convention, People First Transportation Alliance, Independent Drivers Guild, and Amalgamated Transit Union. For some members of that coalition, like the Rev. A. Michael Charles Durant, autonomous vehicles further isolate people living in an increasingly digital world.
“It further erodes human contact and connectedness,” said Durant, pastor of Tenth Street Baptist Church in Northwest. “It’s something as simple as a ride if you’re on a bus and there’s somebody there. We may not put much value on it, but if someone is going through [something],… an autonomous vehicle can’t pull over and comfort someone.”
