2026-10-19 - Council of the District of Columbia

WHY DON'T WE GET STARTED. GOOD MORNING. THIS IS PRESS CONFERENCE THAT I HAD BEFORE. LEDG LEGISLATIVE MEETING FOR TOMORROW. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20TH, WE WILL HAVE A LEGISLATIVE MEETING. I BELIEVE WE CALL

IT AN ADDITIONAL LEGISLATIVE MEETING. IT'S NOT REGULARLY SCHEDULED. BUT WE WILL DO IT NEXT MONTH, AND DECEMBER AS WELL. HAVING ADDITIONAL MEETINGS. AND WE HAVE A COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. AT THE COMMITTEE

OF THE WHOLE, THE AJEGENDA THAT WE CIRCULATEDI THINK IT WAS EIGHT BILLS. BUT THE DEFERMENT OPTION WILL NOT BE ON THE MARKUP. WE ARE STILL WAITING ON A FISCAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT FROM THE OFFICE. I

DON'T THINK THERE ARE ANY PROBLEMS. I THINK THE CFO OF THE OFFICE OF REVENUE ANALYSIS IS WORKING WITH AN ACTURARY. AND WE BELIEVE THEY WILL NOT HAVE A LISTENING TERM FISCAL COST. MAYBE SHORT-TERM

ADMINISTRATIVE STARTUP COSTS. THIS IS ACTUALLY A BIG DEAL FOR FIREFIGHTERS AND POLICE. IT JUST IMPROVES THEIR BENEFITS AT NO COST TO THE DISTRICT GOVERNMENT. AS TO THE WAY WE STRUCTURED THIS, A DROP

ACT ALLOWS FOR A FIREFIGHTER OR POLICE OFFICER WHO IS ELIGIBLE FOR RETIREMENT TO RETIRE BUT CONTINUE WORKING. YES, YOU MIGHT THINK THAT IS DOUBLE DIPPING. BUT THEY COULD CONTINUE TO GET A SALARY. THEY

COULD GET RETIREMENT BENEFITS, BUT THEY COULD NOT BE GETTING INTEREST ON THE RETIREMENT BENEFITS. AND IN IS ATTRACTIVE. WE BELIEVE THIS IS ATTRACTIVE TO FIREFIGHTERS AND POLICE OFFICERS. THE UNIONS

HAVE BEEN SUPPORTIVE OF THIS. BUT THAT WILL NOT BE TOMORROW. SO IT LOOKS LIKE THAT WILL BE NOVEMBER 10TH. LOOKING AT THE OTHER MEASURES HERE, I THINK THE ONE THAT IS GETTING MARKED UP BY -- BY THE

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, THAT DESERVES SOME ATTENTION IS THE BOAT HOUSE. WE ARE DOING TWO THINGS IN THAT BILL. ONE IS CLOSING A STREET THAT NOBODY KNEW EXISTED. 35th STREET THAT RUNS TO THE RIVER. IF

YOU ARE STANDING ON TAYS STREET, YOU WILL NOT SEE IT -- IT'S DEDICATED BUT UNPAVED RIGHT OF WAY. BUT ALSO, ACCEPTING A TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION. WE ARE COMBINING TWO MEASURES HERE. ONE IS A TRANSFER

OF JURISDICTION, AND THE CLOSING OF 35th STREET. THERE IS COMPANION LEGISLATION THAT IS ON THE COMMITTEE AND FACILITIES AND HUMAN SERVICES THAT DEALING WITH SURPLUS AND DISPOSITION. BASICALLY, WE ARE

SWAPPING PARCELS WITH THE PARK SERVICE SO WE CAN FINALLY GET THE BOAT HOUSE SITUATION FIXED. AND THE BOAT HOUSE HAD ISSUE WITH 9 COMMITDY TSH IT WILL BE BUILT BY GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY. SO THERE WILL

BE LOTS OF BOAT HOUSES DOWN THERE AND A LOT MORE RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES. A LOT MORE MEASURES TO THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. TURNING TO THE LEGISLATIVE

AGENDA, I'M GOING TO FOCUS ON THE MEEMERGENCY BILLS. MOST OF THE FIRST READING ARE WHAT COME OUT OF THE COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE. WE HAVE LEGISLATION THAT I'M MOVING MAYORAL TRANSITION. THAT IS TO CLARIFY

THAT MONEY THAT WE PUT IN THE BUDGET FOR THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR TO SUPPORT THE TRANSITION TO NEW MAYOR IS AVAILABLE NOW AND DOESN'T HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS CERTIFIES THE BOARD

RESULTS. I DON'T EXPECT THERE IS ANY CONTROVERSY AROUND IT. I THINK ACTUALLY THE BIGGEST CONCERN I HAVE IS WHY WE HAVE TO DO THIS WHEN WE WERE CLEAR IN THE BUDGET THAT THE MONEYS SHOULD BE AVAILABLE

TO THE MAYOR ELECT, EVEN IF THE MAYOR EVICT HASN'T BEEN CERTIFIED AFTER NOVEMBER 3RD. I DON'T THINK THE RESULTS WILL BE CLOSED. I'M NOT SURE I'M ALLAHED TO SAY THAT AT A GOVERNMENT PRESS CONFERENCE. I

WILL PHRASE IT THIS WAY. UNLESS THE RESULTS ARE CLOSE, IT SEEMS TO ME THERE IS NO DOUBT WHO WILL BE ELECTED. AND AS OF NOVEMBER 4TH, THAT PERSON SHOULD BE ABLE TO PROCEED WITH TRANSITION. WITHOUT

HAVING TO WAIT. THE OTHER MEASURE WHICH COUNCIL MEMBER WHITE NOTICED IS TRAFFIC AND PARKING TICKET PENALTY REDUCTION. AS I UNDERSTAND THE BILL -- I HAVE TO LOOK AT IT CLOSER TODAY, IT HAS A

SIGNIFICANT FISCAL IMPACT. AND THEREFORE WILL NOT BE AN ORDER TOMORROW. HOWEVER, IT'S TO AN ISSUE THAT THE COUNCIL HAS GRAPH THEED WITH SOME WHAT, AND I INTEND THAT NEXT COUNCIL PERIOD THAT WE PUT

MORE FOCUS ON IT, AND THAT IS WITH THE AUTOMATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT, THAT WE ARE SEEING TICKETS ISSUED IN MUCH GREATER VOLUME. AND IN A SENSE, THAT IS A GOOD THING BECAUSE IT'S REFLECTING THAT

DRIVING -- THERE ARE BAD DRIVERS OUT THERE. HOWEVER, IT MEANS THAT FINES ARE RACKED UP VERY QUICKLY, AND THE FINES ARE QUITE HEFTY. AND MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION IS THAT THE FINES SHOULD BE CUT IN HALF.

THAT WE ALSO HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE NOTICE ISSUE. BECAUSE WITH PHOTO ENFORCEMENT, A DRIVER DOESN'T GET NOTICE OF THE INFRACTION FOR WEEKS. AND THEREFORE, THERE COULD BE REPEAT VIOLATIONS AT THE SAME

SITE, WHICH IS WHY WE ARE SEEING AN INCREASING NUMBER OF DRIVERS WHO OWE THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN TICKETS, AND THAT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE FOR MOST ANYBODY IN THE CITY TO BE OWING THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. SO

I THINK THIS LEGISLATION TOMORROW IS AN EFFORT TO GET -- A GOOD EFFORT TO GET A PROBLEM. BUT IT HAS A FISCAL IMPACT THAT WILL NOT BE ADDRESSED IN THE 90 DAYS OF AN EMERGENCY OR THE 225 DAYS ON OF A

TEMPORARY. SO IT WILL BE OUT OF ORDER. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT. WE HAD TWO HEARINGS LAST WEEK, MAYBE IN THE LAST TWO WEEKS. ONE WAS ON BROKEN ELEVATORS IN SCHOOLS. WHICH GOT SOME

ATTENTION. I INTEND TO HAVE A FOLLOW-UP HEARING AT THE END OF NOVEMBER THERE. I THINK THAT THE SITUATION WITH THESE NON-WORKING ELEVATORS IN SCHOOLS NOT ONLY IS A PROBLEM IN OUR SCHOOLS BUT ALSO IS A

WINDOW ON MISMANAGEMENT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES. AND -- SO I INTENT TO CONTINUE FOCUSING ON THIS. THE OTHER HEARING WE HAD LAST FRIDAY WAS ON REVENUE PROPOSALS. AS I SAID AT THE HEARING,

IT'S NOT MY INTENTION THAT WE'RE GOING TO JUST ADOPT A TAX INCREASE RIGHT NOW. BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE A FULL AIRING OF DIFFERENT PROPOSALS WHICH WE ARE UNABLE TO DO WHEN WE HAVE A

BUDGET. I FEEL LIKE I'M REPEATING WHAT WE SAID LAST WEEK, BUT WHEN WE HAVE A BUDGET, THERE ARE ADVOCATES WHO SAY, WE WANT TO YOU INCREASE THE DPUFUNDING VOUCHERS OR INCREASE TAXES TO DO IT. AND THEN,

THERE IS A SUGGESTION WITH TAXES, AND THERE IS AN ADEQUATE DISCUSSION OF DEBATE, WHICH IS A PROBLEM. SO I THOUGHT FRIDAY'S HEARING WAS VERY GOOD, AND THAT THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF DISCUSSION OF THE

PROS AND CONS OF DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO TAXES. AND QUITE A GOOD DISCUSSION -- WITH RELATED ISSUES, LIKE DO TAXES INDUCE PEOPLE TO MOVE OUT OF THE DISTRICT? AND IN FACT, I THINK WHAT I HAVE IN MIND IS

TESTIMONY, SOMEBODY WHO SAID, YES, THEY DO, THAT THE EVIDENCE IS MIXED ON THAT. BUT ALSO, A GOOD DISCUSSION ABOUT SOME OF THE RESEARCH BEYOND DIFFERENT PROPOSALS. LIKE I'M THINKING LAND VALUE TAX

WHERE WHEN I ASKED SPECIFICALLY ABOUT RESEARCH, I DIDN'T GET AN ANSWER, WHICH MAKES ME THINK THERE IS NOT A LOT OF RESEARCH BEHIND THAT PARTICULAR PROPOSAL. ALL OF WHICH IS TO SAY, THE DISCUSSION, THE

PROS AND CANS, THE ARGUMENTS ALL IS VERY HELPFUL. AND I HOPE IT WILL STIMULATE DISCUSSION OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS IN CASE THE COUNCIL DOES WANT TO RENOVATE NEXT YEAR WHEN WE HAVE A BUDGET. THOSE

ARE THE ISSUES I WANTED TO TOUCH ON. -- ORDINARILY, THE COUNCIL MEETING ON THE FIRST TUESDAY OF THE MONTH, WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT OUR NEXT LEGISLATIVE MEETING WOULD BE NOVEMBER 3RD. BUT WE DON'T MEET

ON ELECTION DAY, SO NOVEMBER 20TH WILL BE THE NEXT LEGISLATIVE MEETING. HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. THANKS FOR DOING THERE. I'M WONDERING IF THERE WERE ANY PROPOSALS FROM THE TAX HEARING ON FRIDAY THAT

STOOD OUT TO YOU AS ESPECIALLY PRACTICAL OR MAYBE LIKELY TO BE IMPLEMENTED AND WHERE WE GO NEXT FROM HERE? THE TESTIMONY AND THE DISCUSSIONS SEEMED TO FOCUS ON TWO TAXES. THE WEALTH PROSEENS TAX AND

THE BUSY ACTIVITIES TAX. IT WAS ALSO CLEAR TO THOSE WHO WERE LISTENING CAREFULLY THAT THE IDEA BEHIND THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY TAX IS TO BROADEN THE BASE BUT NOT TO INCREASE THE RATE ON EXISTING

TAXPAYERS. SO THAT IS IMPORTANT HERE. THERE COULD BE ADDITIONAL REVENUE, BUT NOT ADDITIONAL REVENUE ON TAXPAYERS. I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT POINT WAS HEARD BY EVERYBODY. BECAUSE I THINK THAT ARE

PROPONENTS WHO ARE FOCUSED MORE ON RAISING MONEY THAN COMING UP WITH THE BEST TAX SCHEME. ACTUALLY, AS I'M SAYING THAT, I'M REMINDED THERE WAS A LOT OF TALK ABOUT HOW REGRESSIVE TAXES ARE. THERE WAS

UNDISPUTED TESTIMONY THAT THE DISTRICT HAS THE MOST OR SECOND MOST PROGRESSIVE TAX BURDEN IN THE COUNTRY AMONG THE DIFFERENT STATES. SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE NEED FOR PROGRESSIVETY, YES, WE CAN BE

MORE PROGRESSIVE. BUT WE'RE ALREADY LEADING THE COUNTRY IN TERMS OF HAVING THE BURDEN ON THE WELTALTHIEST RATH HAN ON THE POOREST. ON THE WEALTH PROCEED TAX, THE TESTIMONY WAS MIXED THERE, BUT THERE

WAS A LOT OF TENSION TO IT. SO THESE SEEM TO BE THE TWO THAT ROSE TO THE TOP. WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? WITH REGOING TO SEE THE TAX REVISION COMMISSION COME BACK? NO, THE TAX REVISION COMMISSION, THEY

DID THEIR THING. AND THEY SORT OF IMPLODED AT THE LAST MINUTE. NO, THEY'RE NOT COMING BACK. IT DOES REMIND ME, THERE WAS TESTIMONY ABOUT EXPENDITURE COMMISSION. AND I'M GOING TO THINK THAT THROUGH. WE

HAD SET UP THE -- THE COUNCIL HAD SET UP THE TAX EXPENDITURE IN 2019. THE MAYOR WAS COMPLETELY UNSUPPORTIVE. NEVER MADE HER APPOINTMENTS AND IT WAS OVERTAKEN BY THE PANDEMIC. BUT I THINK THAT IS A

NECESSARY EXERCISE, TO BE LOOKING -- FIGURING OUT A WAY THAT WE CAN HAVE AN OBJECTIVE AND THOROUGH ANALYSIS OF THE SPENDING. THAT IS TOUGH. BECAUSE EVERYBODY -- EVERYBODY WILL SAY THAT THERE IS WASTE

IN GOVERNMENT, AND VERY OFTEN, WHAT SOMEBODY IDENTIFIES AS WASTE IS SOMETHING THAT THEY DON'T SUPPORT. SO I HAPPY TO THINK THAT THE PROGRAM IS REALLY STUPID. SO OF COURSE THAT IS WASTE. ON THE OTHER

HAND, THERE MAY BE 90% OF THE POPULATION THIS THINKS PROGRAM "A" IS REALLY GOOD. THAT IS THE CHALLENGE LOOKING AT EXPENDITURES. THAT THE WASTE ISN'T ALWAYS TRUE WASTE. IT IS OFTEN SOMEONE THAT IS NOT

POPULAR TO THE OPPONENTS. ONE LAST. OPPONENTS -- SPECIFICALLY IN THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY AND ELSEWHERE TO RAISING TAXES -- SAY THE SOLUTION LIES IN CUTTING SPENDING. IS THERE ANY APPETITE TO PUT AS

MUCH EMPHASIZE AS WE HAVE ON RAISING TAXES AS THERE WOULD BE ON CUTTING PROGRAMS FOR OTHER EXPENDITURES? I WOULD SAY THERE SHOULD BE AS MUCH APPETITE. I'M NOT SURE THERE IS. HOWEVER, I WOULD SAY

LOOKING AT EXPENDITURES AND GETTING RID OF PROGRAMS THAT REALLY AREN'T PRODUCING -- BECAUSE THEY CAN BE OBJECTIVELY MEASURED. IT JUST NEEDS TO BE -- THAT'S NOT GOING TO GET US TO TWO OR $300 MILLION

THAT ADVOCATES ARGUE WE NEED. OKAY. THANKS, AGAIN FOR HAVING US. I WAS GOING TO SAY TO THAT POINT, THERE IS ANOTHER SIDE OF THE LEDGER WHICH IS THE EXPENDITURES PART. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A HEARING ON

OCTOBER 209TH TO LOOK AT AGENCY SPENDING, TO LOOK AT CFO PRACTICES. HOW SHOULD WE THINK OF THAT? IS THAT THE POINT TO GET AT THE EXPENDITURE SIDE? OR IS IT MORE OF LOOKING AT THE WAY THE BUDGET IS

FORMED AND SOME AGENCY OVERSPENDING? I KNOW IN THE NOTICE, IT SAID THERE WERE THREE THINGS WE WERE LOOKING AT? SHOULD I THINK ABOUT THIS AS A WAY TO GET AT THAT EXPENDITURE QUESTION OR SOMETHING ELSE?

IT'S AN APPROACH TOWARDS THAT EXPENDITURE QUESTION. AND AN EXPENDITURE COMMISSION, WHICH THE COUNCIL FORMALLY SET UP, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO FORMALLY SET IT UP RIGHT NOW. AN EXPENDITURE

COMMISSION WOULD LOOK MORE THOROUGHLY OR COMPREHENSIVELY AT EXPEND CITUR AT AN AGENCY OR ACROSS THE CITY. THE HEARING IN OCTOBER IS TO GET AT MORE WHAT THE GOVERNMENT, WHAT THE EXECUTIVE IS DOING TO

CONTROL OVERSPENDING, AS WELL AS IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BUDGET. SO THERE ARE THINGS, INITIATIVES THE COUNCIL PUTS IN THE BUDGET THAT ARE NOT ALWAYS CARRIED OUT BY THE EXECUTIVES. SO WE WANT TO LOOK AT

THAT AS WELL. A BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION, AND CONTROL -- YOU SAID THREE. I'M PROBABLY FORGETTING THE THIRD. THE OCFO POLICIES. AND I THINK IT GETS TO THAT POINT. NUNDING MEASURES BEFORE BY THE COUNCIL.

SO IS THERE -- LET ME ADD. SO, A YEAR AGO, WHEN I HAD A SERIES OF HEARINGS ON BUDGET AND OVERSPENDING, WE CLOSED OUT FY 25, COMPARED TO THE ADOPTED BUDGET FOR FY 25, THERE WAS OVERSPENDING, I WILL

SAY, 200 MILLION, I WILL SAY CLOSER TO 300 MILLION. SOME OF THAT WAS RECTIFIED IN WHAT WE CALL THE SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET, THE REVISED BUDGET, AND THAT IS A SOURCE OF SOME FRUSTRATION FOR ME. BECAUSE THE

AGENCY WILL OVERSPEND AND THE MAYOR WILL COME TO THE COUNCIL AND SAY, WILL YOU INCREASE THE AGENCY'S BUDGET? WE INCREASE THE BUDGET, AND THE MAYOR WILL SAY, THE AGENCY DIDN'T OVERSPEND. WELL, THEY

DID. IT'S JUST THAT WE APPRECIATED ADDITIONAL DOLLARS, AND SO, WHEN YOU LOOK AT ALL OF THE OVERSPENDING COMPARE -- ALL THE SPENDING COMPARED WITH THE INITIAL BUDGET FOR THE AGENCIES, THE OVERSPENDING

WAS PROBABLY ABOUT $300 MILLION. FOR THE YEAR WE JUST ENDED, ALTHOUGH WE HAVEN'T SEEN NUMBERS, I'M GUESSING THE OVERSPENDING IS ABOUT A THIRD OF THAT. SO THERE'S BEEN SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT. BUT

THERE'S STILL OVERSPENDING. THERE'S ALWAYS SOME UNDER BUDGETING. AND THAT TOO IS A SOURCE OF FRUSTRATION BECAUSE WHEN THE MAYOR SUBMITS A BUDGET, A COMMITTEE -- A COUNCIL COMMITTEE KNOWS A BUDGET FOR

A PARTICULAR PROGRAM OR AGENCY IS TOO LITTLE. SAYS IT TO THE AGENCY DIRECTOR, IS -- DO YOU NEED MEASURE MONEY? AND THE ANSWER IS ALWAYS NO. THE MAYOR'S BUDGET IS ADEQUATE. IF I CAN FOLLOW UP. JUST --

TO LOOP BACK TO SOMETHING ELSE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT. I KNOW YOU SAID YOU DON'T LIKE THE PHRASE FAIR SHARE. I'M NOT GOING TO USE THAT. WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THE ARGUMENT, IF YOU RAISE TAXES THERE IS

GOING TO BE TAX FLIGHT? THERE IS A SPIRITED DEBATE. WHERE DO YOU BUY? IF YOU RAISE IT A CERTAIN AMOUNT, HOW SENSITIVE ARE PEOPLE TO IT? AND HOW SENSITIVE ARE THE D.C. FOLKS TO TAX FLIGHT? WHAT IS YOUR

GENERAL SENSE? I KNOW IT'S NOT 100% EITHER WAY. JUST TO GET YOUR TEMPERATURE ON THAT. I THINK THERE IS. BUT I THINK IT'S BY DEGREES. IF WE MAKE A SLIGHT ADJUSTMENT TO THE INCOME TAX, THERE IS PROBABLY

VERY LITTLE FLIGHT. IF WE MAKE A MAJOR INCREASE TO THE INCOME TAX, THERE COULD BE A SIGNIFICANT FLIGHT, RELOCATION. I THINK -- I THINK THERE ARE TWO FACTORS THAT -- WHAT DO I WANT TO SAY? THERE ARE

TWO FWAK TORS THAT COME TO MIND. ONE OF WHICH IS THE DEGREE TO WHICH THERE IS A DEGREE OF INCREASE. THE LESS OF AN INCREASE, THE LESS -- THE LESS IT INDUCES PEOPLE TO MOVE, OR BUSINESSES TO MOVE. AND

I THINK THE OTHER FACTOR IS WHEN INDIVIDUALS OR BUSINESSES HAVE A SENSE OF INSTABILITY WITH REGARD TO TAXES P AND WHAT DO I MEAN BY THAT? SO, I DON'T -- I THINK IT'S EXTREMELY UNWISE, EVEN IF TAX

INCREASES OCCUR AND THEY ARE NOT SIGNIFICANT, IT'S EXTREMELY UNWISE TO DO IT YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR. BECAUSE THEN IT FEELS VERY UNSTABLE OR UNCERTAIN. SO IF WE MAKE SOME CHANGES THIS COMING YEAR,

THAT SHOULD BE IT FOR A COUPLE YEARS. A COUPLE YEARS. YEAH. THANK YOU, APPRECIATE IT. AND I MEAN THAT. A COUPLE IN THE COLD CLOAK YAL SENSE, NOT THE LITERAL SENSE. MARTIN, IT'S YOUR TURN. SINCE WE'RE

TALKING ABOUT THE HEARING, FROM EVERYTHING YOU HEARD FROM THE PEOPLE WHO SPEAK, LOOK AT THE NEXT BUDGET, AND YOU STARTED THE HEARING TALKING ABOUT A POTENTIAL $600 MILLION DEFICIT ALREADY. IS THERE

ANYTHING YOU HEARD ON FRIDAY THAT YOU THOUGHT, THIS IS SOMETHING WE HAVE TO DO TO CLOSE THAT GAP? NO. SO WE CAME INTO THIS YEAR WITH OVER A BILLION DOLLAR GAP. I REMEMBER THE GRIEVING THAT THE CITY

ADMINISTRATOR HAD AT A MAJOR COUNCIL BREAKFAST, AND I THINK HE SAID THAT THE GAP HE WAS TRYING TO CLOSE WAS 1.1 BILLION. MAYBE 1.2 BILLION. AND WE WERE ABLE TO GET THROUGH THIS YEAR WITH MINIMAL

REVENUE INCREASES. YES, THERE WERE SOME REVENUE INCREASES. WHAT DO WE DO? WE ADOPTED A $0.20 DELIVERY FEE WHICH BRINGS IN $3 MILLION. THERE WAS SOME LITTLE STUFF LIKE THAT. WE WERE ABLE TO MOVE

FORWARD WITH -- WITHOUT A MAJOR TAX INCREASE. SO I DON'T -- I DIDN'T COME OUT OF THE HEARING SAYING -- OR GO IN THE HEARING SAYING WE NEED TO RAISE TAXES. OKAY. AND KIND OF GETTING BACK TO THE IDEA OF

AN EXTEND PURR COMMISSION, THERE WASN'T THE ONLY REQUEST THAT SOME PEOPLE MADE. THERE WAS THE FINANCE AND REVENUE COMMITTEE THAT HASN'T EXISTED SINCE -- YEAH, I THOUGHT THAT WAS INTERESTING. MAYBE I

WENT GO THERE. NO, YOU SHOULD GO THERE. LEADING IN THE NEXT SESSION, YOU HAVEN'T MADE DECISIONS ABOUT COMMITTEES. BUT -- UNLESS YOU SHOULHAVE AND SHOULD YOU TELL US NOW. BUT THE COMMITTEEING NOW AND

AGAIN -- DEUSED TO HAVE A FINANCE AND REVENUE COMMITTEE, AS KNOW, AND WE WILL A COMMITTEE FOR -- FOR A VERY LONG TIME, AND I WOULD DARESAY THE MEETING IS THE FIRST TIME I CAN REMEMBER THERE BEING A

COUNCIL MEETING ON REVENUES. SO THE IDEA THAT YOU NEED A COMMITTEE TO HAVE A FOCUS, WELL, THERE ISN'T A FREE STANDING SEPARATE FINANCE REVENUE COMMITTEE, AND YET, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME ANY OF YOU CAN

RECALL THERE BEING A HEARING ON REVENUES. WE -- I DARESAY IF YOU LOOK AT THE BUDGET WE ADOPTED THIS SPRING, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT ANY OF YOU CAN RECALL THERE WERE ACTUALLY SOME REDUCTIONS TO THE

BUDGET OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, WHICH IS ALWAYS KNOWN TO THE FINANCE AND REVENUE COMMITTEE. SO IT'S NOT A FUNCTION OF WHETHER THERE IS A FREE STANDING COMMITTEE. IT'S A FUNCTION OF WHAT THE

COMMITTEE WHO HAS JURISDICTION IS GOING. AND I WOULD ARGUE THAT MORE BROADLY. I HAVE SEEN THAT. I HEARD THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF EDUCATION, HOUSING. I WAS A LITTLE SURPRISED ON FRIDAY WITH FINANCE AND

REVENUE. MEMBERS KNOW BETTER. THEY KNOW THAT THE WORK OF A COMMITTEE IS GUIDED -- DECIDED, CREATED BY WHOEVER IS CHAIRING THE COMMITTEE. AND -- YOU CAN TAKE FINANCE AND REVENUE AND PUT IT IN SOME

OTHER RECREATION COMMITTEE, AND IF THE CHAIR OF THE RECREATION COMMITTEE IS COMMITTED TO HAVING HEARING ON REVENUE, WE WILL HAVE THEM, AND YOU CAN HAVE A FREE-STANDING COMMITTEE, AND IF THE COMMITTEE

CHAIR DOESN'T CARE TO HAVE HEARINGS ON $50 MILLION IN EMBEZZLEMENT FROM THE CFO, THEN YOU WON'T HAVE IT, EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE A FREE STANDING COMMITTEE. THEN CAN THE ARGUMENT BE, WHY HAVEN'T

COMMITTEES OTHER THAN THE COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE AND GET THE STAFF TO HANDLE EVERYTHING IN THE GOVERNMENT? NOT TO SAY THEY CAN'T. WELL, THEY CAN. I THINK THAT IS AN EXCELLENT IDEA, MARTIN. ALL RIGHT. I

WILL ASK THEM AFTER ABOUT THAT. AND LAST QUESTION, BACK TO THE ISSUE OF COUNCIL MEMBER WHITE'S EMERGENCY BILL -- I MAY HAVE WORDS WITH YOU AFTERWARDS. YOU CAN HAVE THEM NOW. WE'RE IN A PUBLIC SETTING.

ABOUT COUNCIL MEMBER WHITE'S BILL ON TRAFFIC TICKETS. YOU KNOW, IT'S A LITTLE FRUSTRATING TO ME. I'M INTERRUPTING YOU BEFORE YOU FINISH THE QUESTION. BUT I WAS REMINDED LAST WEEK THAT COUNCIL MEMBER

WHITE INTRODUCED LEGISLATION WHICH WAS ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL BACK BEFORE THE PANDEMIC THAT WOULD I THINK SUBSTANTIAL REDUCE, ELIMINATE, CONVERT DEFINES, THE A.T.E. FINES AND SERVICE WORK. INSTEAD OF

HAVING TO PAY A FINE, YOU CAN DO COMMUNITY SERVICE. IT WAS TO GET AT THE IDEA OF A BURDEN, AND IT HAD A COST. JUST LIKE THE EMERGENCY NOTICE FOR TOMORROW HAS A COST, AND THE COUNCIL MEMBER NEVER DID

ANYTHING TO FUND IT. AND THAT'S ALSO A CHALLENGE WITH TOMORROW. SO IT'S OUR RULE IS THAT IF AN EMERGENCY IS NOT FUNDED -- AND IT COULD BE THAT THE FUNDING IS A COMMITMENT FROM THE MAYOR THAT SHE WILL

FUND AN EMERGENCY. THAT IF IT'S NOT FUNDED, IT WILL BE OUT OF ORDER. BECAUSE THE EMERGENCY WILL EXPIRE IN 90 DAYS. AND IT'S ALSO MISLEADING TO THE PUBLIC. THE COUNCIL ADOPTS FINES, AND IN FACT WE

DON'T, BECAUSE IT'S NOT FUNDED. AND IN THIS CASE, I DON'T KNOW -- I HAVEN'T SEEN THE PHYSICAL IMPACT STATEMENT. BUT I'M GUESSING IT'S IN THE TENS OF MILLIONS, MAYBE THE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS. WELL, THE

LAST TIME HE PASSED THIS BILL IN 2018, IT WAS 111 MILLION OVER FOUR YEARS. SO ROUGHLY 30 MILLION A YEAR. YEAH, WELL -- THAT IS NOT EXACTLY WHERE I WAS GOING WITH MY QUESTION. I DO THINK WE NEED TO

ADDRESS THE PROBLEM. WHERE WERE YOU GOING WITH THE QUESTION? HAVE YOU ALWAYS FELT THAT THE CITY SHOULD ADDRESS THE PROBLEM? OR HAVE YOU COME AROUND MORE RECENTLY BECAUSE OF CONCERNS ABOUT

AFFORDABILITY? I WOULD SAY SEVERAL MONTHS AGO. BECAUSE WHAT I HAVE COME TO SEE IS THAT -- I MEAN, IT'S EXTRAORDINARY. YOU WILL READ IN THE PAPER THAT SO AND SO OWED $16,000 IN FINES. AND OF COURSE,

THE FIRST THOUGHT WE HAVE, THIS IS A REALLY BAD DRIVER, WHICH MAY BE THE CASE. BUT HOW DO YOU RACK UP FINES LIKE THAT? YOU RACK THEM UP BECAUSE YOU GET TICKET AFTER TICKET OR TICKET WHICH YOU CAN DO

WITH A.T.E. IF YOU TAKE THE SAME ROUTE TO WORK EVERY DAY, AND THAT IS FIVE TICKETS IN A WEEK. AND THE LOWEST SPEEDING TICKET IS $100. FRANKLY, I THINK -- NOBODY LIKES TICKETS. AND SOMEBODY WHO GETS A

$50 TICKET IS GOING TO BE UNHAPPY. AND THAT WILL HAVE THE SAME EFFECT AS A $100 TICKET. BUT WITHOUT THE AFFORDABILITY ISSUE. HOLD ON ONE SECOND. AND THEN I RECENTLY GAVE ADVISE TO SOMEBODY IN COUNCIL

WITH SOMEBODY, PAY YOUR TICKETS. BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T PAY THEM, THEY DOUBLE. AND THAT DOESN'T HELP YOUR SITUATION. ONE THING YOU DID START OFF WITH, YOU SAID THAT SOME PEOPLE WITH DRIVE BY THE CAMERAS

AND GET MULTIPLE TICKETS AND NOT KNOW UNTIL THEY GET THEM IN THE PLAY. FUN FACT, THE DMV ALLOWS TO YOU FINE UP FOR TEXT MESSAGES AND EMAIL NOTIFICATION SO YOU FIND OUT IN TWO DAYS YOU HAVE A TICKET. I

ONLY RECENTLY FOUND OUT THE DMV MADE IT NOT OBVIOUS TO THE PUBLIC. CORRECT. THEY DID NOT MAKE IT OBVIOUS. AND I THINK THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE, I THINK THIS IS JUST HUMAN NATURE IN DENIAL. SO WHY DO I

WANT TO SIGN UP TO BE NOTIFIED OF TICKETS? I THINK YOU HAVE A HUMAN NATURE PROBLEM THERE AS WELL AS DMV NOT TELLING PEOPLE ABOUT THE SERVICE. AND I'M REMINDED, A READ AN ARTICLE THAT WAS IN THE PAPER

-- THE ARTICLE WAS BEFORE THE WEEKEND. BUT ONE OF THE WAYS THAT WE CAN IMPROVE OUR SANITY IS TO TURN OFF OFF THE ALERTS THAT WE GET ON OUR SMARTPHONES. BECAUSE IT MEANS WE JUST SPEND MORE TIME ON OUR

SMARTPHONES AND GET DISTRACTED. HOW MANY ALERTS DO YOU HAVE ON YOUR CELL PHONE? NONE. OKAY, I'M NOT SHOCKED. AND I'M STILL SANE. WELL, I THINK I AM. I THINK I AM. THAT IS THE HEADLINE. I THINK I AM. I

WILL TALK TO MY STAFF AND FIND OUT IF I'M STILL SANE. SO ON FRIDAY THE DCOMMITTEE F THE WHOLE IS HOLDING A HEARING ON PUTTING A ROOF ON THE FIELD. WHICH WE KNOW THAT THE MAYOR IS OPPOSED TO. YEAH, IF

SHE IS THE DISTRICT OF CHAMPIONS AND CARES ABOUT SPORTS TEAMS, SHE WILL WANT D.C. UNITED TO ENLARGE THE STADIUM AND WANT TO HAVE GAMES IN THE NEW SOCCER SEASON, WHICH IS IN THE WINTER. HAVING SAID

THAT, THE HEARING IS TO HEAR ORGANIZEMENTS FOR AND AGAINST BECAUSE I KNOW THERE ARE FOLKS WHO THERE ARE FOLKS IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR THAT DON'T HAVE A BILL. AND HER JUST BEING IN OPPOSITION BEFORE WE

HAVE A HEARING, IN MY VIEW IS -- CONTRARY TO THE POSITION OF BEING SUPPORTIVE OF MAJOR LEAGUE SPORTS IN THE CITY. IS THIS SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO WAIT TO HOLD A VOTE ON UNTIL NEXT YEAR WHEN WE

HAVE A NEW MAYOR? DO YOU HAVE ANY INDICATION HOW THE INCOMING MAYOR FEELS ABOUT THIS? THE INCOMING MAYOR, I HAVE SPOKEN A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IT WITH HER. BUT I'M NOT SURE I CAN TELL YOU WHAT HER

POSITION IS. I WILL SAY I CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT HER POSITION S IS, JUST BECAUSE DIDN'T REMEMBER. I REALLY SEE THE HEARING AS INFORMATIONAL. AND THERE WAS ALTOGETHNOTHER PA THE QUESTION? IS THERE

SOMETHING WE ARE GOING TO WAIT FOR UNTIL NEXT YEAR? I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW. I THINK YOU UNDERSTAND THIS. BUT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC, WE HAVE FOUR -- AFTER TOMORROW, WE HAVE FOUR LEGISLATIVE

MEETINGS LEFT. SO IT'S GETTING INCREASINGLY TIGHT TO GET ANY LEGISLATION THROUGH THAT HASN'T ALREADY HAD A HEARING AND CONSIDERABLE WORK DONE ON IT. SO I DON'T KNOW. BUT WHAT I'M INTERESTED IN IS --

WITH THE HEARING, UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE TRUE COSTS ARE FOR THE -- FOR THE PLANS FOR THE FIELD. TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE NEED. SO I HAVE A SENSE THAT THEY HAVE A NEED. YOU KNOW, MAJOR LEAGUE SOCCER IS

CHANGING THE -- FLIPPING THE SEASON. SO THEY'RE GOING TO BE PLAYING GAMES IN THE WINTER. BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT EVERY MAJOR LEAGUE SOCCER STADIUM THAT DOESN'T HAVE A ROOF IS GOING TO BE. BILLIE JEAN:

-- BUILDING A ROOF. SO COST, NEED. AND THERE ARE CONCERNS WITH REGARD TO THE WASHINGTON SPIRIT, AND THEIR USE OF THE FIELD. OTHER USES OF THE FIELD, AND THEN HOW THIS -- THESE CHANGES WOULD COMPETE

WITH OUR OTHER INVESTMENTS, NATIONALS BALLPARK, WHEN I SAY COMPETE WITH, I MEAN FOR NONSPORT EVENTS. SO COME PEOPLE WITH NATIONALS BALLPARK FOR CONCERTS OR OTHER EVENTS. COMPETE WITH THE COMMANDERS

FOR CONCERTS OR OTHER EVENTS. COMPETE WITH THE DOWNTOWN ARENA FOR CONCERTS AND OTHER EVENTS. I WANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT AS WELL. OKAY. I DON'T THINK IT'S IN OUR INTEREST TO BE CANNIBALIZING -- FOR US,

MEANING THE CITY, TO CANNIBALIZE OUR INVESTMENTS WITH MORE -- MORE NONGAME CAPACITY -- THAT IS THE MAYOR'S CHIEF ARGUMENT, OPPOSED TO HAD. AND YOU SHARE THAT CONCERN WITH HER? WELL, IT HASN'T BEEN

KWAUNLFIED. SO THAT IS WHAT THE HEARING IS ABOUT. GOT IT. AND REALLY, SHE DOESN'T -- SHE KNOWS THE ANSWER BEFORE WE HAVE A HEARING? THAT IS KIND OF INTERESTING. AND AS I SAID, SHE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT

THE NEED TO INCREASE THE CAPACITY OF THE STADIUM? I THINK IT'S AN INCREASE FROM 22,000 TO 30,000 SEATS. NOT INTERESTED? D.C. EUNITED'S ABILITY TO PLAY N THE WINTER, NOT INTERESTED? I'M SURPRISED.

THERE IS ALSO A HEARING, I BELIEVE NEXT WEEK, ON THE POPLAR POINT LAND SWAP TO BUILD A SPA THERE. THE INCOMING MAYOR IS OPPOSED TO THIS MAX TO MARTIN'S REPORTING. AND WE KNOW THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE

ALSO MIXED ON THIS. I'M WONDERING WHERE YOU SIT. I'VE NOT ANNOUNCED A POSITION. WILL YOU? AT SOME POINT I WILL. WHY NOT NOW? WELL, LET'S SEE HOW THE HEARING GOES. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

PLEASE, GO FOR IT. BEHIND YOU. HI, THANK YOU FOR THE TIME. JUST TWO OFFTOPIC QUESTIONS ABOUT LAST NIGHT. I WANT TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT THE NATIONAL GUARDSMAN THAT WAS SHOT LAST NIGHT, AND IF SOME

RESIDENTS IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT MULTIPLE FIGHTS BREAKING OUT RECENTLY, AND I WANT TO KNOW IF YOU ARE AWARE OF THOSE SITUATIONS HAPPENING IN THAT AREA? YEAH, SURE, I HAVE NOT

BEEN -- I HAVE NOT BEEN BRIEFED. ON THE INCIDENT LAST NIGHT. SO I'M RELUCTANT TO SPEAK TOO MUCH TO IT. I THINK THAT THE -- THE INCIDENCE OF THESE FIGHTS IS OBVIOUSLY NOT GOOD. AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND

WHY THEY'RE HAPPENING AND WHY THE POLICE AREN'T ABLE TO PREVENTIVELY OR PROACTIVELY PREVENT THEM, AVOID THEM. AND I DON'T KNOW THE DETAILS OF THE STRUGGLE LAST NIGHT. OF COURSE IT'S NOT A GOOD -- IT'S

ABSOLUTELY NOT A GOOD THING THAT A GUARDSMAN WAS SHOT. AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE ALLEGED PERPETRATOR WAS SHOT AS WELL, OR ONE OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE FIGHT WAS SHOT. I JUST NEED TO KNOW

THE DETAILS. BUT A VERY UNFORTUNATE SITUATION. GOT YA. SO MULTIPLE RESIDENTS HAVE RAISED CONCERNS, BECAUSE THE NATIONAL GUARDSMAN WAS INTERFERING, TRYING TO STOP A FIGHT, AND RESIDENTS HAVE BEEN

SAYING THERE ARE MULTIPLE FIGHTS HAPPENING IN THAT AREA. HAVE YOU BEEN MADE AWAY -- NO, I DON'T LIVE TOO FAR AWAY FROM EASTERN MARKET. I NEED TO FIND OUT MORE. YOU HAD ANOTHER QUESTION? IN REGARDS TO

THE NIGHT LIFE NOISE BALANCE BILL THAT WILL BE DISCUSSED TOMORROW, I SAT THROUGH THE HEARING ON IT OVER THE SUMMER. SO I UNDERSTAND THE BROAD STROKES OF IT. BUT I'M WONDERING IF YOUR MIND WHY THIS IS

NECESSARY AND WHY NOW? JUST TO UNDERSTAND WHY THIS MOMENT. WELL, THERE ARE OFFENSE COMPLAINTS WITH REGARDS TO NOISE WITH ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN THE EVENING. I WANT TO SAY ABC ESTABLISHMENTS, BECAUSE THAT

IS PRINCIPALLY WHAT IT IS. I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED THERE ARE SUBJEC SUBJECTIVE STANDARDS IN THE BILL, AND WE ADOPTED LEGISLATION WITH REGARD TO OUTDOOR NOISE A COUPLE YEARS AGO, WHERE WE HAVE A MORE

OBJECTIVE STANDARD. I DON'T THINK THAT THE BILL -- I DON'T THINK THE BILL REFLECTS THAT WORK. THE BILL FOR FORM REFLECTS THAT WORK THAT WE DID A COUPLE YEARS AGO ON THE OUTDOOR BUSKER NOISE. THEY ARE

THE MUSICIANS THAT HAVE A HAT TO COLLECT DONATIONS AND PERFORM MUSIC, LET'S SAY AT METRO STATIONS. AND WHEN WE ADOPTED THE LEGISLATION TWO YEARS AGO IT HAD OBJECTIVE STANDARDS IN IT. IT COULD HAVE

MEASURED INSIDE THE NEAREST RESIDENCE OR MEASURED AT THE SOURCE OF THE MUSIC. AND -- THE BILL FOR TOMORROW, I UNDERSTAND, DOESN'T HAVE THAT KIND OF OBJECTIVE STANDARD. SO THAT IS A CONCERN. AND I

THINK THE RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION HAS CONCERNS ABOUT IT. SO WE WILL GET A FULLER AIRING TOMORROW. SOUNDS GOOD. UNFORTUNATELY, WE DON'T HAVE A BREAKFAST BEFORE THE MEETING. WE WILL GO IN THE MEETING,

AND PROBABLY, YOU WILL SEE THE BREAKFAST TYPE DISCUSSION AT THE COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE. THANK YOU. YEAH. LAST ONE, TO BRING YOU BACK TO WHERE WE STARTED. ON TAXES. THE ONE THING THAT WAS INTERESTING IN

THE HEARING, THERE WAS TESTIMONY AROUND HOW EASY OR HARD IT WOULD CBE TO IMPLEMENT THE CHANGES. AND IT COULD TAKE A COUPLE YEARS TO IMPLEMENT. AND THE PROCEEDS TAX COULD TAKE A WHILE. SO THAT MEANS IF

THE INCREASE IS IN NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET, YOU COULD HAVE A LIMITED NUMBER OF THINGS TO CONSIDER. THERE WAS TALK ABOUT ACROSS THE BOARD PROPERTY TAX INCREASES. AND SALES TAX INCREASE. WHERE DO YOU FEEL?

WHERE DO YOU STAND ON THE THINGS, LIKE, THIS IS A PROBLEM WE ALL FACE. WE ALL HAVE TO CONTRIBUTION A LITTLE MORE SO LET'S INCREASE PROPERTY TAXES FOR EVERYBODY, OR MAYBE A WHOLESALE THING TO INCOME

TAX BRACKETS. WELL, I DO WE WE HAVE GOTTEN AWAY FROM TRADITIONAL TAXES AND THE TRADITIONAL WAY OF RAISING TAXES AS WE TRY TO BE MORE AFFECTING OF POLICIES LIKE TAXES THE RICH. AND I'M NOT SAYING

GETTING AWAY FROM THE TRADITIONAL APPROACHING IS A BAD THING. BUT TRADITIONAL APPROACHES ARE TRADITIONAL APPROACHING BUS THEY ARE LESS COMPLICATED. AND I DO THINK THAT SOME OF THE NEGATIVES ABOUT THEM

HAVE BEEN OVERSTATED. SO I WILL JUST SPEAK TO THE SALES TAX. I THINK MOST PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE THAT MAYOR BOWSER PROPOSED A TAX CUT. IT SHOWS UP IN THE FINANCEABLE PLAN. IT'S A 6% TO THE 7%. THE

CHALLENGE THERE IS THAT THE INTENT IS TO FUND THE NEW COMMITMENT TO SOMETHING THAT HASN'T BEEN MADE, AND THE REGENTS HAVE BEEN WORKING ON. I THINK -- I'M PROBABLY GOING TO GET IN TROUBLE FOR SAYING

THIS. THE SALES TAX IS A REGRESSIVE TAX. IT DOESN'T MEAN IT CREATES THE KIND OF PAIN THAT ONE THINKS OF WHEN THEY THINK ABOUT A TAX BEING REGRESSIVE. 1% INCREASE IN A SALES TAX, WHICH WILL HAPPEN

BETWEEN 6% AND 7%. YES, IT'S REGRESSIVE IN LOWER INCOME FOLKS, GOING TO PAY A HIGHER PEN CENTAGE OF THEIR INCOME IN THE SALES TAX THAN A WEALTHY PERSON. HOWEVER, IN ABSOLUTE DOLLARS, I DON'T THINK

IT'S A LOT. AND WHEN YOU REFLECT ON THE FACT THAT A TAX BURDEN FOR LOW-INCOME FOLKS IN THE CITY IS LOW. MOST OF THEM PAY NO INCOME TAX, EVEN THOUGH THE NOMINAL TAX RATE IS -- I THINK IT'S 6%. BUT THEY

DIDN'T PAY TAX. AND BECAUSE THAT IS JUST THE WAY WE STRUCTURED OUR TAXES. AFTER YOU FACTOR IN THE STANDARD DEDUCTION AND THE PERSONAL EXEMPTIONS AND OTHER TAX RELIEF THAT WE MAKE AVAILABLE. SO I THINK

THE ARGUMENT OF REGRESSIVETY, I GUESS I WOULD SAY IS MORE DRAMATIC THAN THE REALITY. NOW, DO WE WANT TO GO FROM 7% TO 8%? THAT'S A LITTLE HEFTY. THE REGION I THINK IS GOING TO END UP AT 7%. BECAUSE

RIGHT NOW, THEY ARE ALL AROUND 6%. I WILL ADD TO THE TALES TAX GETS A NONRESIDENCE. AND THE INCOME TAX DOES NOT. THE WEMENT TAX DOES NOT. SO, I'M NOT SURE IF I'M ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION. THERE ARE THE

TRADITIONAL APPROACHES THAT HAVE BEEN LARGELY IGNORED. BUT BUT I THINK WE SHOULD COME BACK TO DISCUSSING THEM. JUST TO FOLLOW UP. UNLESS I'M INTERRUPTING YOU. WHY DO YOU THINK THEY HAVE BEEN IGNORED.

IS IT A FLAFSHIER OPTION GETS MORE ATTENTION? OR IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE? I THINK IT'S THE FLASHIER OPTION GETS MORE ATTENTION. WE HAVE SEEN ACROSS THE COUNTRY, I PUSH FOR A WEALTH TAX. THERE'S SOME

BILLS I THINK PENDING IN CONGRESS. THERE IS A BILLIONAIRE TAX IN CALIFORNIA. THERE'S BEEN ATTENTION TO THAT. I JUST -- IT'S FLASHIER. IT'S -- THAT'S WHY. DID THE BILLIONAIRE TAX -- IT DIDN'T COME UP.

WE HAD THE ARCHITECT OF IT SPEAK AT THE HEARING. YES. YEAH. I DON'T THINK THE DISTRICT'S IN THE SAME PLACE AS CALIFORNIA. FOR ONE THING, FEWER BILLIONAIRES. ANOTHER THING, I'M NOT SURE THAT MANY OF

THEM ARE DOMICILED IN THE DISTRICT. AND FOR A THIRD THING, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MOVING FROM LETS SAY LOS ANGELES TO ARIZONA AND MOVING FROM THE PALISADES TO ARLINGTON. THANK YOU. IF WE'RE

GOOD, I WILL SEE YOU ALL TOMORROW. THE COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE IS 11:00. THANK YOU.