Get Well+Being delivered to your inbox every Monday Morning.

Plus another way to win Nationals playoff tickets. By Alison Kitchens
Have you seen this guy? Photograph by Flickr user Mrs. Gemstone.

Washington Nationals fans woke up to a nice surprise this morning—the team announced over Twitter that almost 100 Jayson Werth gnomes are hiding around DC, Maryland, and Virginia today, some of which have special prizes attached. Gnomes have been found around Old Town, Dupont Circle, American University, and a handful of other locations so far, but, from the looks of the tweets, there are still plenty of tiny Werths left to find. Sounds like it's time for a coffee break.

If you're not lucky enough to find a gnome with playoff tickets attached, there's still a way to win some. Create a postseason sign for the team and upload it to Twitter or Instagram before Thursday, October 2, at 1 PM.

Find Alison Kitchens on Twitter at @alison_lynn

Posted at 09:32 AM/ET, 10/02/2014 | Permalink | Comments ()
DC's legal ambiguity around services UberX and Lyft could come to an end if new legislation goes through. By Benjamin Freed
Photograph via Shutterstock.

Score another victory for the transportation apps. On Wednesday, the DC Council will start marking up legislation to defog the regulatory haze around “ride-sharing” companies like UberX, Lyft, and SideCar and grant the companies official permission to continue operating with just a few minor adjustments.

The “Transportation Network Services Innovation Act of 2014,” first introduced in April by Council members Mary Cheh and David Grosso, would permanently concede that the ride-sharing services are going to be a permanent component of DC’s tranportation menu, much to the frustration of traditional cab drivers and the DC Taxicab Commission. On the consumer end, though, little will change for people who use apps like Uber to get around town. The companies will have to make a few small tweaks, but overall, it’s another win for them.

What does the bill require the ride-sharing apps do?

The biggest priority in the bill is insurance. Under Cheh’s and Grosso’s legislation, DC would require ride-sharing drivers to be covered by an insurance policy—carried by the company, not the driver—of at least $1 million whenever their apps are switched on, regardless of whether there’s a passenger in the back seat. The bill also requires the ride-sharing companies to conduct criminal background checks on their affiliated drivers and to have drivers mark their vehicles with some kind of adornment that identifies them as a ride-sharing vehicle.

Isn’t that what Uber, Lyft, and Sidecar are doing already?

That's what they say. When UberX launched, drivers were insured by their personal policies and only got the company’s policy when they picked up a passenger, but the company says its insurance has been the primary coverage since early 2013. All three companies already conduct background checks on their would-be drivers. As for “trade dress,” as identifying adornments are known, only UberX leaves its cars unmarked right now, while Lyft cars wear fuzzy pink mustaches on the grill and SideCar vehicles feature jackets over their side mirrors. UberX will likely get with the program, too. Uber told drivers in Virginia this week that they can order a window decal; if the this bill becomes law, the District’s Uber drivers will likely get the stickers, too.

Why doesn’t the taxi commission like this?

For the same reason the commission bristled since Uber’s black cars first showed up: it mostly removes vehicles-for-hire from the commission’s purview. From its first draft, the ride-sharing bill has granted exemptions from most of the commission’s oversight duties, including collecting trip data, keeping vehicle inventories, and enforcing taxicab regulations. The commission’s chairman, Ron Linton, told WAMU that the bill creates a big risk for consumer fraud.

Why don’t cabbies like this?

Apparently, the sight of more than 1,000 taxis clogging Pennsylvania Avenue in June as a protest tactic against ride-sharing didn’t sway the DC Council in traditional cabs’ favor. Traditional taxis are far more stringently regulated than ride-share vehicles, from more frequent car inspections to background checks that include fingerprint scans. Their biggest gripe is that UberX and Lyft can set their own rates far below the city-mandated cab fares. UberX currently charges a $2 base fare, plus $1.25 per mile and 25 cents per minute, while a hailed taxi costs $3.25 plus $2.16 per mile, a price difference that cab companies say have cut revenues between 20 and 30 percent since the ride-sharing apps showed up.

Is there anything in this bill that taxi drivers might like?

The bill doesn’t shut out traditional taxis completely. In fact, it allows any app-based service that books rides to set fares different than the standard rates, which would allow apps like Hailo or Curb, which connect users with regular cabs, to price themselves competitively with the likes of UberX and Lyft. It won’t solve the cabbies’ every complaint, but it could help them compete against a modern mode of transportation that clearly will not be driven out of town.

Find Benjamin Freed on Twitter at @brfreed.

Posted at 01:35 PM/ET, 10/01/2014 | Permalink | Comments ()
Psychologists say news coverage of the most recent fence-jumper will inspire copycats. By Michael Gaynor
President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama in the East Room of the White House in July—the same room Omar Gonzalez was able to run into two months later. Official White House Photo by Pete Souza.

When it comes to assassination attempts, how much information is too much? Flooded by stories and reports of the White House fence-jumper, plus new information about the shots fired across the South Lawn in 2011, some psychologists say that media saturation of this political violence could spur more.

J. Reid Meloy, a forensic psychologist and clinical professor of psychiatry at UC San Diego who studies the assassinations of public figures, says one of the central motivators for these sorts of attacks is to gain a level of notoriety. And when someone like Omar Gonzalez, the fence-jumper, receives a storm of media coverage for his actions, other would-be assassins notice and want the same.

“They pay close attention to people who have preceded them,” says Meloy, co-editor of the book Stalking, Threatening and Attacking Public Figures: A Psychological and Behavioral Analysis. “They tend to not only identify with previous attackers, but also, in a sense, compete with them for greater notoriety.”

One of the most comprehensive reports on assassination in the US was a 1999 study of all 83 people known to have attacked or attempted to attack a public official or public figure from 1949 to 1996. The targets could be very different—presidents, congressmen, judges, celebrities—but there was a commonality to many of the attackers. They had reached a sort-of life crisis and wanted to leave a lasting impact on the world. The attackers saw assassination and the media coverage that follows as a way to do that.

“For them, it's better to be notorious than ignored,” says Jerrold Post, director of the political psychology program at George Washington University. Founder of the CIA's Center for the Analysis of Personality and Political Behavior, Post spent two years in the 1960s as part of an NIH unit at St. Elizabeths Hospital interviewing people who had threatened the White House. He mentions the case of Frank Eugene Corder, who crashed his small plane onto the White House lawn in 1994. “He wanted to go out in a blaze of glory,” says Post. “It's the powerless seeking power by connection.”

Some of the attackers in the study even changed their intended victims. The killing could thus be impersonal, less about a specific target or grievance and more about the notoriety gained from the act itself.

“Typically these individuals lives have deteriorated to the point, at least in their mind, the most important alternative choice is to kill a public figure,” says Meloy. “It compensates for a life of failure and misery.”

Meloy believes the attackers shouldn't even be named by the media. He says that while an attacker's history and motivations are something the public has a right to know, photographs of them or personal comments they made at the time should be avoided. It's the same reason television networks don't show the streakers who run onto a soccer field during a game—giving them the coverage they desire will only inspire more to do the same. “They see the individual notoriety this person has gained through this act, and they want it too,” says Meloy.

Not identifying these attackers also prevents would-be assassins from forming a personal connection to their predecessors, which can also motivate them. Meloy points out that John Hinckley Jr.—who shot President Reagan in 1981—idolized Mark David Chapman, John Lennon's killer. Aspiring assassins have been known to even write or call their idols in prison.

A comprehensive account of what motivated Omar Gonzalez's mad dash to the East Room isn't fully known yet, but, Meloy says, “it wouldn't surprise me if notoriety is one of them.”

Find Michael Gaynor on Twitter at @michael_gaynor.

Posted at 12:00 PM/ET, 10/01/2014 | Permalink | Comments ()
New revelations about the Secret Service's failures are a good reason to assess the White House's relationship with its neighbors. By Benjamin Freed
The way we sightsee now. Photograph by Flickr user Joe Flood.

Among the many revelations about bungled White House security laid out in recent days by the Washington Post’s Carol Leonnig, few are as jarring as the tidbit about the Secret Service’s initial assessment of the November 2011 incident in which a gunman fired a semiautomatic rifle at the presidential residence:

“By the end of that Friday night, the agency had confirmed a shooting had occurred but wrongly insisted the gunfire was never aimed at the White House. Instead, Secret Service supervisors theorized, gang members in separate cars got in a gunfight near the White House’s front lawn — an unlikely scenario in a relatively quiet, touristy part of the nation’s capital.”

During a week when the Secret Service has been flayed by public officials and the media, it's worth adding this to the bill of complaints: This theory betrays a baffling ignorance of the city where the agents work. To note this isn't to make another one of those poor-pitiful-me hometown gripes about how federal types ignore the locals. If you're in charge of protecting a guy who lives on Pennsylvania Avenue and periodically moves around the city, being an ignoramus about the environs represents a professional breach.  

A gunfight near the front lawn would be where, exactly? The steps outside of DAR Constitution Hall? Not impossible, but highly implausible. As Leonnig notes in the same story, the Secret Service can’t depend on the Metropolitan Police Department’s ShotSpotter technology—the nearest gunshot monitor is about a mile away—but of the parts of the District that are observed for weapons fire, the four plots closest to the White House complex each recorded one incident between 2009 and 2013.

The area immediately surrounding the White House—historic hotels, museums, other heavily fortified government buildings—is one of the lowest-crime parts of the city. The area would, on paper, get even safer if the response to last month’s White House invasion by a man who climbed over the fence and managed to dash deep into the building before being stopped, is to fatten up the security bubble. Ironically, the security bubble itself may be part of the problem when it comes to agents being able to ignore their surroundings. Alas, the Secret Service's first reaction to the latest revelations would make that worse.

Every instance of the White House restricting more turf from the public only exacerbates the nettlesome relationship between the presidential bubble and the city that surrounds it. Pennsylvania Avenue was closed off in 1995 after the Oklahoma City bombing; E Street, Northwest, followed after 9/11. The Secret Service actually staged a public forum in July 2013 raising the possibility of re-opening the two blocks of E Street south of the White House to bicycle traffic, but the matter hasn’t been touched since.

The biggest lesson the Secret Service struggles to latch onto in the District is that federal government police agencies need to be more cognizant of the fact they operate inside a city with 645,000 non-term-limited people. While veteran MPD officers tell Washingtonian that DC cops and officers working for the Secret Service or US Park Police share lots of information, there’s a fundamental difference in the types of police work they perform. Local cops patrol street corners and walk beats, federal cops—especially Secret Service officers on presidential detail—secure perimeters. Delroy Burton, the head of the union representing MPD’s rank-and-file officers, says expanding the buffer around the White House would be the wrong response.

Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton amplified Burton’s caution in her testimony Tuesday at a House Oversight hearing on the September 19 incident in which suspected intruder Omar Gonzalez made his way over the fence and into the White House. “Particularly troubling in light of such unanswered questions would be a rush to quick fixes such as suppression of public access to the area around the White House without a thorough investigation,” she said.

Yet the White House’s misunderstanding of its neighborhood runs deeper than just the past few years. In 1989, President George H.W. Bush gave a now-infamous press conference in which he amped up the “War on Drugs” by holding up a bag of crack cocaine purchased by Drug Enforcement Administration agents in Lafayette Park. But even at the height of DC’s crack epidemic, Lafayette Park was no drug market, and it took some manipulation to get a dealer there. When the DEA called the dealer it would eventually nab for Bush’s prop, the suspect’s response was “Where the [expletive] is the White House?” the Post reported at the time. The police union scolded the White House and the DEA for mixing politics with law enforcement.

Burton is hardly insensitive to the White House’s concerns, though. District police are responsible for all presidential movements within city limits. The Secret Service works closely with MPD, but the partnership is tighter in the special operations division than it is with officers on street patrols.

The Secret Service clearly has issues to work out, as shown in Leonnig’s reporting this week, but its exposed faults seem more the results of human error. Responding by suddenly expanding the security bubble again—whether it’s more fences and Jersey barriers or bag checks on 15th Street—will only make the White House more alienated from the rest of Washington.

“They key is to educate the public,” says Burton. “When people understand what you’re doing and why you’re doing, it’s easier for them to accept some difficulty. But when they don’t know what you’re doing, it creates anxiety.”

Find Benjamin Freed on Twitter at @brfreed.

Posted at 10:15 AM/ET, 10/01/2014 | Permalink | Comments ()
But a lot of people think it's too little, too late. By Carol Ross Joynt
A sampling of artifacts the Smithsonian has accepted into its LGBT collection. In the center is one of the 1960s picket signs that have been a point of contention between the institution and activists. Gay-rights memorabilia courtesy of National Museum of American History. Photo-illustration by Gluekit.

The National Museum of American History's acquisition of a large haul of gay-rights memorabilia—a gay US ambassador's passport, scripts from NBC's 1998-2006 series Will & Grace, among other objects—was announced in August as if it were the start of something new.

In fact, the museum and Washington's gay community have a long relationship, and like most relationships, it's complicated.

The Smithsonian has accepted artifacts of the LGBT struggle for years, but activists say the history museum hasn't given their cause the attention—or floor space—afforded other civil-rights movements. One consequence: Gay donors have been much likelier to place their collections elsewhere.

The perceived snub dates to 2006, when the museum's then director, Brent Glass, met with activist Frank Kameny, a former Defense Department astronomer whose sexual orientation had led to his dismissal in 1957. The bulk of Kameny's papers, some 70,000 items, had gone to the Library of Congress, but he gave a dozen picket signs used in protests at government buildings in the 1960s to the Museum of American History. "We were closed for renovation," Glass recalls, so the signs were added to a temporary Air and Space Museum exhibit, "Treasures of American History." But after the history museum reopened, the signs went into storage.

"It wasn't a decision not to display them," Glass says. "A lot of people expect their donation to be exhibited right away, but it doesn't always work like that."

That's not the way activists saw it.

In a 2010 Huffington Post editorial, Charles Francis—who heads the Mattachine Society of Washington, DC, a gay-rights group—derided the Smithsonian for ignoring LGBT issues, claiming, "There is not a single gay or lesbian story told in the entire National Museum of American History." As evidence, Francis cited the picket signs: "Those brave pickets are stored in the dark of a Smithsonian vault."

Smithsonian curator Katherine Ott, who says the museum has "thousands" of donated items in its LGBT collection, takes issue with the idea that contributions are locked away. "We are not a vault," she says. "We are very porous." One of the picket signs, Ott points out, is displayed in an exhibit about the presidency. "The others are in storage, and we'll swap those out."

As it happens, just months after Francis's op-ed appeared, another Smithsonian outpost, the National Portrait Gallery, opened "Hide/Seek," an exhibit that explored "difference and desire," including a graphic video by artist David Wojnarowicz about AIDS. When some complained that it was anti-Christian, the museum pulled the piece. Says Francis: "The controversy may have ironically helped us. Glass and the curators were forced for the first time to openly address the problem."

Ott agrees that the Smithsonian's culture as evolved. "I could completely see an exhibition about LGBT history at some point," says Ott, who curated a 2011 show at the Museum of American History commemorating the 30th anniversary of the onset of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. But she says no comprehensive or permanent gay-related show is currently planned.

For now, the museum's call for gay artifacts is a first step toward rectifying an "earlier record of indifference," says Aubrey Sarvis, former executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a lobbying force in the repeal of the US military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The network gave some of its documents to the Smithsonian in 2012, but Sarvis is working with the Library of Congress to archive his own experiences, calling the library a "serious and substantive place."

Ott doesn't regard the library as competition. Gay contributions to any archive only break barriers for all of them. Her job, she says, "is getting easier all the time."

This article appears in the October 2014 issue of Washingtonian.

Read More

Posted at 05:00 PM/ET, 09/30/2014 | Permalink | Comments ()
Plus the family's early ties to the Clintons. By Leslie Milk
Marjorie Margolies in Washingtonian's April 1993 issue.

We’ve seen lots of photos of Bill and Hillary Clinton holding the new “royal baby,”  their granddaughter Charlotte Clinton Mezvinsky, but her other grandparents have yet to get their photo op.

New father Marc Mezvinsky’s parents were once very public figures, too. Marjorie Margolies was a popular reporter for Channel 4 in Washington  in the '70s and '80s.  She made headlines herself as the first single woman to adopt two baby girls from Korea and Vietnam. She later married former Iowa congressman Ed Mezvinsky, and they had two sons together, Andrew and Marc. The Mezvinsky household eventually included 11 children—four from his first marriage, her two adopted daughters, their two sons, and three boys from Southeast Asia for whom they became legal guardians.

The clan moved back to Margolies’s home state of Pennsylvania, where she ran for and won a seat in Congress in 1992. A Democrat, Margolies won her election in a largely Republican district by 1,300 votes.

I shadowed her from the time she was elected through her first few months in Congress. Together we wrote “Freshman Rush” for the April 1993 issue of Washingtonian. “Triple M,” as she was known by her staff, hit the ground running and never stopped. Between jockeying for committee assignments and setting up her staff and office, Margolies-Mezvinsky worked on the schedule for her complicated household back in the Philadelphia suburbs. She munched granola and took frequent phone calls from Andrew and Marc.

She noted that “after a few days, some people were so wiped out that they started skipping events they’d have killed to be invited to just a week earlier.”

Not Marjorie. I had a hard time keeping up with her, and it was it was a great relief for me to see her take off her high heels and run down the marble hall in the Capitol in her stockinged feet to catch the elevator to cast her first vote as a member of Congress.

Margolies with her son, Marc, and other family members in Washingtonian's April 1993 issue..

As new member of Congress, Margolies met new president Bill Clinton during freshman orientation. “He offered congratulations from Hillary, who had generously campaigned for me in the fall,” she recalled. Then he asked, “Do you really have 11 children?”

Margolies knew she was on shaky ground in her district, but it was her vote for Clinton’s 1993 budget that sealed her political fate. Triple M opposed the budget until a call from Clinton convinced her to cast the deciding vote in its favor. As she voted, Republicans in the House shouted “Goodbye, Marjorie.”

She lost her reelection race in 1994 and returned to Pennsylvania to run unsuccessfully for Lieutenant Governor in 1998.

Meanwhile, Ed Mezvinsky was engaging in a number of failed business deals, which would eventually lead to a conviction for bank, mail, and wire fraud. According to a federal prosecutor, Mezvinsky was conned by “just about every different kind of African-based scam we’ve ever seen.” In order to raise the funds needed to front the money for the fraudulent investment schemes he was being offered, Mezvinsky tapped his network of contacts and dropping the name of the Clinton family to convince people to give him money. Mezvinsky was indicted, pleaded guilty to many of the felony charges, and served time in federal prison.

Margolies dropped out of a Democratic primary for the Senate in 2000 because of her husband’s legal troubles and her own filing for bankruptcy. The Mezvinskys divorced in 2007, and Marjorie resumed her maiden name. She ran for political office again in 2014, but lost a primary for her old Congressional seat despite campaign help from the Clintons. Margolies’s campaign was hampered by claims in the Huffington Post that while she served as chief executive and chairman of the Women’s Campaign International, an overly large portion of the nonprofit's assets were allocated to Margolies’ salary and benefits.

This isn't the first time that Margolies and Mezvinsky have been left out of the picture—when Chelsea Clinton married Marc in 2010, the groom’s parents were not in any of the selected wedding pictures.

Posted at 12:34 PM/ET, 09/30/2014 | Permalink | Comments ()
Still looking for tickets? You can do better than this. By Benjamin Freed
#Natitude? Photograph via Shutterstock.

The Washington Nationals sold out tickets to the National League Division Series in 17 minutes last week, throwing hordes of fans to the secondary market. Tickets for the first game, on Friday, start at $73.90 on StubHub, but there are some offers that the prim-and-proper ticket vendor won't carry, like this one, which is currently available on Craigslist's Northern Virginia site:

I have two Diamond Club tickets for Fridays opening playoff game. The tickets include all you can drink beer & wine as well as all you can eat gourmet food. I am willing to part with these tickets to you and a friend in exchange for a threesome (two women only). I am not some old gross dude, actually 24 and athletic. I just cant go to the game and don't really need the extra money, and have always wanted to take place in a threesome. Please send 2-3 photos of you and your friend, so I can see what we're working with.

This is a no strings attached deal.

You read that right. Some dude is offering premium tickets in exchange for horny adolescent wish fulfillment, but, don't worry, he swears he's actually athletic and totally not gross. (Not that he backed up this claim with a photograph of himself in the ad.) Diamond Club seats, located behind home plate, were $225 each when playoff tickets went on sale. This guy must be of some means if he doesn't care about getting back his $450. He doesn't say why he's skipping the Nationals game, but we're guessing it's not to attend Yom Kippur services.

Find Benjamin Freed on Twitter at @brfreed.

Posted at 12:03 PM/ET, 09/30/2014 | Permalink | Comments ()
The House of Cards star did not let a cold affect his annual Kevin Spacey Foundation fundraiser. By Carol Ross Joynt
Kevin Spacey belts out a standard from the stage of the Harman Center on behalf of his Kevin Spacey Foundation. Photograph courtesy of the Kevin Spacey Foundation.

Kevin Spacey made Frank Underwood proud on Tuesday night, illustrating that in Washington, as in the entertainment industry, the show must go on. The House of Cards star sang his heart out from the stage of the Harman Center, even though it was clear something just wasn’t right. Backed by an orchestra that filled the stage, he performed some of the greatest hits of the American songbook, but the occasional high note was more croak than croon. After only two songs he confessed to the audience that he had a frog in his throat, hinting at a cold. 

During the speaking parts of the show, Spacey spoke quietly. Later, a guest who sat in the front row, said, “I could barely hear him. He was really pushing himself.” Another guest noted his voice was “a little raspy.”

A sore throat was not going to deter Spacey from this occasion, called Kevin Spacey in Concert, his second big bash in Washington to raise funds for his baby—the Kevin Spacey Foundation. Last year, the fundraiser consisted of a seated dinner at the Mandarin Hotel. This year, it was a sold-out lavish stage show and an after-party at Poste in the Hotel Monaco that, according to one organizer, raised more than $700,000. Both events featured Spacey singing his favorite songs, fondly remembering his mentor Jack Lemmon, and dropping the occasional reference to Underwood, the devious and (more-or-less) fictional character he portrays in the hit Netflix series, House of Cards.

“It’s been a helluva lot of fun portraying Frank Underwood through the past couple of years,” Spacey said, commending his character's abilities to get others to fall in line. “This man is passionate and dedicated, the supreme salesman.” He called the concept of the evening, raising money for arts education programs, and the show and party, “Frank Underwood’s guide to philanthropy.”

Fittingly, the evening’s co-chairs were bipartisan—House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer.* Other co-chairs included Hunter and Kathleen Biden, Jill and Nathan Daschle, Lyndon Boozer, Melissa Maxfield, Ted Sarandos of Netflix, Charles Segars of Ovation, and British Ambassador Peter Westmacott and his wife, Susie. Adrienne Arsht served as the event chair. The Spacey Foundation, founded in 2010 in England, where Spacey was artistic director of the Old Vic Theatre, provides young artists with scholarships, grants, and other learning experiences.

Spacey made it to the after-party, was reportedly in every way the good sport, and stayed until the end, past midnight, though the same guest who had watched him from the front row of the concert observed, “he was clearly not feeling good.” 

There’s this for anyone who had face time with Spacey on Monday night: If you end up with a cold, you can say you got it from an Academy Award-winning actor, the President of the United States, or both. In true political tradition, his spokesperson would not confirm or deny a cold. 

*This post has been updated from a previous version.

Posted at 09:41 AM/ET, 09/30/2014 | Permalink | Comments ()
Kiss's Gene Simmons says it's time for Dan Snyder to make a change.

Another day, another person opining about the Redskins’ name. As the controversy grows, people with no connection to local politics or pro football have decided the world needs to hear their opinion, too. Here’s a roster of likely and not-so-likely recent commentators who say the name is offensive.

Click on the chart to view a larger version.

This article appears in the October 2014 issue of Washingtonian.

Posted at 04:20 PM/ET, 09/29/2014 | Permalink | Comments ()
Odds are AU won't have much trouble getting its money back. By Benjamin Freed
Photograph by Flickr user bootbearwdc.

Playoff baseball is thrilling, but it also runs later than regular games, raising the possibility that Nationals fans might need a ride home after Metro’s usual weeknight closing at midnight. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority will keep the trains running late for a cost, and just as they did in 2012, the Nationals have wiggled their way out of paying up.

The Nationals’ playoff schedule isn’t set yet, but Metro announced Monday that if any of the upcoming games run late, American University will put up the cash to keep the system open. Metro asks for a $29,500 deposit for each additional hour of service, with a two-hour maximum. The Capitals have fronted the money when their games run late, and even Dan Snyder pays up when his football team plays a night game, but the Nats are stingy about it. In 2012, the team held out until LivingSocial offered to make the deposit.

“AU is known for helping people in Washington ‘get to where they want to go’—and now supports Nats fans in post-season play,” the university’s president, Neil Kerwin, says in a press release. The school is also one of the team’s major sponsors, an arrangement that includes stadium signage and in-game promotions.

American University is a more financially stable benefactor than LivingSocial, but its willingness to cover Metro’s possible expenses is being met with skepticism and hostility from a few alumni.

But the thing that AU grads can take to heart—and what makes the Nationals’ reluctance to put up the money in the first place so irritating—is that their alma mater is very likely to not lose a cent in making sure Nationals Park visitors get home. When someone puts up the late-train deposit, Metro credits them back $5.36 (double the average fare) for each passenger boarding up to $29,500 per hour. (Metro keeps any balance.) That’s about 5,500 customers, or 11,000 if Metro stays open for two hours. 

If a Nationals playoff game runs past 10:30 PM on Sunday through Thursday, the Navy Yard-Ballpark station will accept customers until at least 12:20 AM, and 5,500 riders boarding per hour isn’t much of a stretch for a Nationals game. The Navy Yard station records 9,229 passenger boardings on an average weekday, but that figure goes up by 9,400 when the Nationals play, according to Metro statistics.

Of course, this is all predicated on the Nationals actually playing on weeknights. With the Nationals securing home-field advantage through the National League Championship Series, the only games that could run late are the fifth game of the Division Series, the second and seventh game of the NLCS, and the fifth game of the World Series. The only late-night game the Nationals played in 2012 was on a Friday (don’t ask what happened), when Metro was already running past midnight. LivingSocial never had to open its wallet.

Posted at 02:01 PM/ET, 09/29/2014 | Permalink | Comments ()