Category: Fall 2002 Newswire
N.H. Natives Worry Over Sniper Attacks
By Riley Yates
WASHINGTON, Oct. 10, 2002–Claremont native Shanon Angielski said Thursday that for a brief moment she felt she had had enough.
“Let’s move back to New Hampshire,” Angielski told her husband while they talked Thursday morning about the recent sniper attacks that have resulted in at least six deaths in the Washington metropolitan area.
She does not really intend to move back to New Hampshire. But the shootings, which have followed on the heels of last year’s Pentagon attack and the anthrax scare, has made the city seem a lot less safe than New Hampshire, she said.
“In New Hampshire, you assume [guns are] for hunting,” said Angielski, who works here for an energy and government policy law firm.
Knowing there is a killer out there targeting people doing everyday chores, she said, has led her to worry as she goes about her daily life. Going to pick up dinner no longer feels safe. Walking down the street, she said, she feels nervous at times.
“Everybody’s a target, so it could be you,” she explained.
“I look around me a lot,” she added. “I seem to hurry back and forth.”
Her feelings are shared by Nashua-born Virginia Wilbert, a legislative assistant to Rep. Charlie Bass.
The other day Wilbert was jogging along the National Mall. “I did notice that I was turning my head more, which is silly. But you can’t help it,” she said.
Wilbert said that the day after last week’s shooting spree that left five dead, House officials passed around a packet with tips for coping with the attacks.
The decision to give the packet out indicated how many people are affected by the attacks, Wilbert said. And on the Hill, she noted, people feel a lot safer than in the suburbs, where the attacks have been occurring.
For Francis Bouchard, who left Concord for Washington 14 years ago, it is his two children for whom he feels most concerned.
“I fear [more] for my children than for my own safety,” Bouchard, who works for a global financial services lobbying company.
He said the shootings have resulted in a real disruption of his kids’ everyday lives. “They can’t go out to recess anymore,” he said, because for security reasons schools no longer allow students to go outside.
Not having recess affects them, Bouchard said, which in turn affects the entire family.
Bouchard said, however, that it was possible to overplay the tension Washington-area residents feel.
“We’re certainly not in hysterics. We’re certainly not in lockdown mode. But you just kind of watch yourself,” he said.
And Bouchard said he did not feel that New Hampshire was necessarily any safer.
“This kind of psychotic can be found anywhere,” he said.
Published in The Manchester Union Leader, in New Hampshire.
Town Sewage Facilities Struggle to Meet EPA Standards
By Riley Yates
WASHINGTON, Oct. 10, 2002--While President Bush and the Environmental Protection Agency are calling this "The Year of Clean Water," wastewater treatment plants in some New Hampshire municipalities are struggling to meet pollution guidelines set by the federal government.
Sewer systems in several towns across the state repeatedly failed to keep the amount of pollutants they released into neighboring streams within levels that are set by the EPA, according to a study recently released here by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG), a liberal lobbying group that focuses on environment and consumer issues.
The study was based on EPA documents from 1999 to 2001 that U.S. PIRG obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. Seventeen New Hampshire municipalities and companies violated EPA standards. Ten of those violators were community wastewater treatment plants including those in Jaffrey, Claremont, and Exeter.
The most common violation came when the plants released more copper into neighboring waters than they are allowed. High copper levels typically are the result of houses that have old, corroding plumbing, Mike Fedak, the senior enforcing agent for the New England EPA, said. Industries that discharge their used water into their local sewer system can also contribute to the problem.
Copper, even in minuscule doses, can kill small aquatic organisms, which form the base of river food chains. "If you don't have the microorganism there, then the fish can't eat them, and it messes up the whole food chain," Fedak said.
While the safety level for copper in drinking water is 1,300 milligrams per liter, the standards are far more stringent, 20 milligrams per liter, for water released into streams, said Fedak.
"It's very difficult to get down to the level we're talking about," he said.
And for municipal governments, already reeling from a nationwide economic decline, it can be an expensive proposition to meet the EPA standards.
"Most people here aren't anti-environmental," Jonathan Sistare, the Jaffrey town manager said. "But there comes a time when it's too much… If the water is good enough for people to drink, it should be good enough for the rivers. You can tell I'm not very happy, but it's just too much to ask a small town to do."
Jaffrey, located on the headwaters of the Contoocook River in southwestern New Hampshire, had nine violations in the three-year period covered in the U.S. PIRG report. Several violations were several hundred times the EPA limit.
The town has spent over $2 million since 1996 upgrading its treatment facility which serves 750 people. By 2005, Sistare said, the town expects to have spent nearly $6 million.
In order to pay for those improvements, Jaffrey had to issue more than $4 million in municipal bonds and soon the interest payments will choke the $500,000 wastewater management budget, he said. "It's going to be 50 percent of our budget just to meet the debt payment," Sistare said.
While Fedak acknowledges that it can be costly for towns to upgrade their facilities he said the EPA must ensure that its guidelines are met. "We recognize that municipalities are in a sort of financial crisis," he said.
So far, of all of the state's municipalities violating the standards, only Claremont has been asked by the EPA to make changes, Fedak said.
Located in eastern New Hampshire near the Sugar River, Claremont was asked in September to submit a statement detailing where the high levels of copper are coming from and how they can be reduced. The city has been given 455 days to respond, Fedak said, which he considers more than enough time.
Claremont had 10 copper release violations over U.S. PIRG's three-year period. On three of those occasions, the city exceeded its emissions standards by a factor of more than 100.
While Claremont is a community facing difficulty meeting the standards, others have managed to fix their treatment problems and comply with the EPA standards.
One success story is Exeter, near the Squamscott River in southeastern New Hampshire. After nine violations in three years, Exeter finished upgrading its sewer system in January, extending the sewer pipeline further into the river and giving it several points of release, which allows copper to be diffused throughout a much larger area.
The project cost $700,000 at a time when "all budgets are tight," Victoria Del Greco of Exeter Public Works said, but since then there have been no violations.
Josh Irwin, the director of the Concord-based New Hampshire Public Interest Research Group, said he hoped the study would help to ensure that other towns were brought into compliance with EPA standards.
"These are not facilities that have a great deal of resources," he said. "That's not to say they shouldn't be held to the same standards as everyone else, [however]."
Other municipalities named as repeat offenders in the report include Keene, Lincoln, Milford and Newmarket.
Published in The Manchester Union Leader, in New Hampshire.
New Hampshire Has Lowest Crime Rate in Nation
By Riley Yates
WASHINGTON, Oct. 10, 2002--New Hampshire has the least crime per capita in the nation, its already low rate falling 4.5 percent last year, according to a study that the FBI made public this week.
Crime rates in New Hampshire were about 45 percent lower than the national average. About 2,321 crimes were committed in 2001 per 100,000 New Hampshire inhabitants, compared to a national average of about 4,160 per 100,000, the study said.
In violent crime, New Hampshire's rate also fell, going down 3 percent, keeping New Hampshire among the five lowest states in that category. For both violent and total crime rates, the Granite State bucked a national trend that saw small increases in those categories.
Ted Kirkpatrick, the director of the University of New Hampshire's Justiceworks, an applied research center on crime and criminal justice, credited the "connectivity" of New Hampshire communities as a key factor in the state's current and historically low crime rates.
New Hampshire has remained a relatively stable community in the past decade, Fitzpatrick said, with its population growth and demographic change remaining smaller than those of its neighbors.
The result is that most people in the state are emotionally and financially tied to where they live. "The more connected people are to their neighborhoods," Fitzpatrick said, "the less invasive is crime."
Kirkpatrick said other factors also played a role in the state's low crime rate. Part of the reason probably lies in New England's regional attitude, he said, adding that unlike in the South, there is no "culture of violence" stemming from the legacy of slavery and segregation.
Relatively high income levels, as well as low unemployment rates, also contribute, Kirkpatrick said.
Murray Straus, a UNH professor of sociology, said that despite the state's economic stability, crime rates will rise in the next few years. "We're certainly very likely to experience them also," he said.
In general, New Hampshire lags behind national trends but does not buck them altogether, Straus explained. With unemployment and population growing in the past few years - even if less than in other states - a rise in crime necessarily follows, he said.
Cities on the southeastern coast such as Somersworth, Portsmouth and Hampton may already show population growth's impact on crime rates, Fitzpatrick said. They had the highest crime rates of New Hampshire cities, probably because of their recent population boom, he said.
"There's more change that's taking place (there)," he said. "With growth comes crime. You have more opportunity for [it], at very least."
Hanover had the lowest overall crime rate among cities in the state in 2001, one-fourth the rate in Lebanon, which had the highest.
Kirkpatrick said Hanover's low crime rate reflects the community's homogeneity and constantly low unemployment. "It's a historically bucolic, Norman Rockwell town. It's as close to mainstream America as you can get," he said.
The only possible area of concern for New Hampshire in the FBI report was its high number of reported rapes, the state ranking 18thworst in the nation in that category.
But analysts said they were unsure whether this reflected a tendency toward increased willingness on the part of victims to report to police that they had been raped, or whether the crime actually had been committed more often.
"Are we doing well or not so well?" Nicole Tower, the director of the YWCA crisis service in Manchester, said. "This is a difficult question to answer."
Tower said she guessed the high number of rape reports was probably a positive statistic, however. "Certainly New Hampshire has well-written (rape) laws," she said. "I think this state is moving forward. It is a state that is aware."
Published in The Manchester Union Leader, in New Hampshire.
Meehan Votes in Favor of Resolution Authorizing Force
WASHINGTON, Oct. 10, 2002--After days of tense debate, the House voted 296-133 on Thursday in favor of a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. On opposite sides of the tally were Rep. Martin T. Meehan, D-Lawrence, who voted in favor of the resolution, and Rep. John F. Tierney, D-Salem, who voted against it.
"This has been one of the toughest decisions I've had to make as a congressman," Meehan said in an interview. "I am genuinely conflicted."
The congressman preferred a more restrictive version of the resolution, offered by Rep. John M. Spratt Jr., D-S.C., which would have authorized the president to use force against Iraq should the United Nations impose sanctions on that country, but which would have required a fresh vote from Congress in the event that the president wished to act unilaterally.
"I felt that the Spratt amendment was the best alternative," Meehan said. Tierney also favored Spratt's alternative, but the amendment was defeated, 155-270. At that point, Meehan said, he felt it was more important to achieve consensus than to squabble about wording.
"America needs to send a united message to the Security Council and to Saddam Hussein," Meehan said. "A world without an effective United Nations would become a dangerous place."
Though the resolution as passed stresses the importance of pursuing a diplomatic solution to the Iraq problem, it authorizes the president to use unilateral force provided he informs Congress within 48 hours. While Meehan seemed confident the administration would not use this power to bypass diplomatic options, Tierney was unwilling to cut Congress out of the process.
"The decision of whether to send our brave men and women in uniform to war is the most serious choice we face as Members of Congress," Tierney said in a statement on Thursday. "Before putting our young people in harm's way, we must be certain there is no other recourse."
Meehan cited the administration's willingness in recent weeks to respond to criticism from congressional leaders as a factor influencing his decision. "Early on, the administration indicated that it didn't need to go to Congress and that it was ready to pursue a unilateral approach. The administration practically ignored the UN. Now there's a working strategy with the Security Council," Meehan said. "I take the president at his word."
Still, he was displeased, he said, that Congress chose to vote this week. "Having a resolution like this three weeks before an election…" Meehan said, "partisanship has been injected into the debate."
The Senate was expected to vote on a similar resolution late Thursday or Friday.
Published in The Lawrence Eagle Tribune, in Massachusetts.
Amtrak Backing Away From MBTA
By Randy Trick
WASHINGTON, Oct. 09, 2002--Amtrak has decided to walk away from its role as operator of the Boston area's commuter lines after nearly two decades.
Amtrak and other rail companies had until noon Friday to file bids for the contract to operate the rail system. While three other rail companies have qualified to place a bid by the deadline, Amtrak announced it has no plans to enter the process to renew its contract, which expires in June.
To the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (MBTA), the bidding process means new faces in the fray.
"The MBTA is excited to have such robust competition," MBTA spokesman Joe Pesaturo said. "Amtrak has had a monopoly for the last 17 years."
Under the current contract, the MBTA pays Amtrak $15 million annually to manage and operate the rail system and maintain the tracks, coaches and other infrastructure, which the MBTA owns.
In a letter to the MBTA, Amtrak president David L. Gunn said the details of the proposed contract make it impossible for his company to bid.
"The provisions contained in the [request for proposals] would radically alter the contractual relationship that exists under your current agreement with us, and make it impossible to develop a reasonable pricing strategy to control risk," Gunn's July letter said.
The main factor affecting Amtrak's decision is liability. According to Amtrak spokeswoman Karina VanVeen, the MBTA's request that Amtrak provide $75 million in insurance coverage is impossible for Amtrak to meet.
"Financially that's not something we can do," VanVeen said.
Also, Amtrak would have to indemnify the MBTA, clearing the transit authority of liability in the case of accidents.
According to the MBTA, keeping the authority free of liability is an industry standard, and under the current contract, Amtrak is often free of liability even in the case of its own negligence.
Gunn also said in his letter that Amtrak "does not have the flexibility or fiscal resources to gamble on a five- or ten-year fixed-price contract."
In response, the MBTA said that asking for bids on shorter contracts, such as two or three years, would discourage other rail companies from bidding because of the complexity of the job and difficulties in transitioning from one contractor to another.
A final point of contention between Amtrak and the MBTA, which is related to the liability issue, is the condition of the MBTA's property. Amtrak said much of the environmental equipment is old and in need of replacement. The MBTA took issue with Amtrak's complaint, saying it has invested heavily in infrastructure.
"Don't forget who's been taking care of the equipment for the last 17 years," the MBTA's Pesaturo said of Amtrak's maintenance.
Ultimately, "the provisions from the MBTA asked its contractors to meet requirements we felt we couldn't," VanVeer said.
Amtrak is not fully willing to walk away from Boston, however. Amtrak's prime showpiece, the Acela Express, shares rails with MBTA's Attleboro line.
Although Amtrak has shown no interest in operating the MBTA's entire operation, Gunn offered to continue operating the southern leg of Boston's commuter rail system. This would allow Amtrak to retain control over scheduling both the Acela Express and the local transit lines.
VanVeen said Amtrak's plan to abandon its contract with the MBTA was a business decision. Amtrak has experienced financial woes over the last year. It was kept afloat this year by a $270 million emergency loan from Congress after Gunn threatened to end service over the Fourth of July weekend.
Now Gunn is asking Congress for a minimum of $1.2 billion for the current fiscal year. Whether he will get his full request is unclear.
The White House, in preparing its budget request, recommended funding Amtrak at last year's level - $521 million. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has approved the $1.2 billion, but the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has approved only $762 million, which Democratic members of the committee warn will mean a cut in long-distance service.
Published in The Lawrence Eagle Tribune, in Massachusetts.
Larson Iraq Resolution Fails
By Marty Toohey
WASHINGTON, Oct. 10, 2002--The Iraq resolution introduced by Rep. John Larson (D-1) failed Thursday, but the disappointed Congressman said the number of House members who voted for his version shows that the American public is "deeply" concerned about granting President Bush broad authority to wage war and about the strategy of pre-emptive action against Iraq.
Larson's version of the resolution failed by a vote of 155-270, while a compromise version blessed by both parties' leaders and the White House, granting Bush the authority to wage war without international support, if need be, passed 296-133.
"Let us hope the margins get the attention of the president," Larson said. "You can hope he'll act accordingly."
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-3), who on Monday came out in support of Larson's amendment and voted for it on Thursday, said the outcome wasn't surprising. "I think the vote was very reflective of the attitudes of the public and sends a strong message to the president," said DeLauro, who opposed the White House-approved version.
Larson was one of five sponsors of the so-called two-step amendment, whose principal sponsor was Democratic Rep. John Spratt of South Carolina. The amendment would have required Bush to come back to Congress to request war-waging authority if he could not gain approval from the U.N. Security Council. The approved version authorizes Bush to attack Iraq alone if he cannot form an international coalition.
Larson called the president's strategy of pre-emption a "radical departure from current foreign policy, and one that needed a longer and deeper thought process." He said his own resolution "struck the appropriate compromise."
Larson also praised the "courageous" vote by Rep. Jim Maloney (D-5) for Larson's amendment.
"Last week it seemed like I was the only one back home who thought this way," Larson said.
For Maloney, the key issue was the "second look" Larson's version required.
Maloney acknowledged it may not be possible to form a coalition, but said he worried that proceeding without one may jeopardize the support of Middle-Eastern countries like Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia for U.S. action against terrorism.
"I believe [Larson's] amendment is more prudent and would provide the chance, should it become necessary, for more discussion about the impact of acting unilaterally," Maloney said.
He also agreed with Larson that the strategy of pre-emption hasn't been discussed thoroughly enough, but said, "It doesn't need to be for the resolutions before us."
Before the final vote House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephart (D-Mo.), who along with the White House and Republican House leaders drafted the approved resolution, said on the House floor that discussions about pre-emption would continue.
Larson and Maloney, despite their objections to the final resolution, said Bush's softened rhetoric over the past weeks means it's likely he will pursue a multilateral solution before moving against Iraq alone.
"Three months ago the administration said they wouldn't reach out to the international community, and they did," Maloney said. "A month ago they said they wouldn't reach out to Congress, and they did. So I'm encouraged, and I hope very much they succeed" in creating a coalition.
Larson cautioned, though, that "the law is the law, and this law makes it clear what he'll be able to do."
House Republicans also said they trust the president not to rush into war with the authority granted him.
"I absolutely believe he will" exhaust every avenue of international cooperation before going to war, said Nancy Johnson (R-6), who voted against Larson's amendment and for the White House version.
"A two-step process doesn't send the message that our future is at stake," Johnson said. "The international community will act if we make it clear that we will if it doesn't. They want to act, and a one-step resolution puts the greatest pressure on them to."
Johnson wasn't the only Republican to trust the president to form an international coalition and do everything possible to protect American lives. A tearful House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) said to a packed House floor before the final vote: "Mr. President, we are about to give you a great trust. We're about to trust to you the best we have. Treat them well, so they can come home."
The Senate was expected to vote on the Iraq resolution Thursday night or Friday. Democratic Sen. Joseph Lieberman has long made clear he would vote for the resolution endorsed by the White House, and Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd said he would also vote for it, although with misgivings about "the dangers that could result from granting the authority contained in this resolution."
Published in The New Britain Herald, in Connecticut.
Congress Approves Resolution for Use of Force Against Iraq
WASHINGTON, Oct. 10, 2002--Reps. Charles Bass (R-NH) and John E. Sununu (R-NH) voted with the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives Thursday in favor of a resolution authorizing President George W. Bush to use military force against Iraq without approval by the United Nations. The Senate was also expected to approve the resolution.
The measure was adopted by a vote of 296 to 133 following three days of consideration on the House floor, weeks of national debate and several speeches by President George W. Bush outlining his case for the use of force against Iraq.
"This bipartisan bill gives the President the military and diplomatic flexibility that he needs in America and with our allies to deal with Saddam Hussein and his regime," Sununu said in a statement released following the vote.
On Wednesday, Sununu spoke in favor of the resolution on the House floor and said that he believed the resolution would send a clear message to Iraq and the rest of the world that Congress supports the president on national security.
Sununu added that waiting until the U.N. begins inspections with restrictions placed by Iraq would delay action and "allow a covert weapons program to begin to bear terrifying result."
Rep. Bass said in a statement that he believes the resolution is in the best interest of America's national security. "After a decade of deceit and deception, in which we have permitted a hostile dictator to repeatedly violate every agreement we have in good faith put before him, the use of force has become a necessary option."
Bass said he hopes that military force does not become necessary but insisted the resolution protects Congress' ability "to remain fully involved in future decisions and actions in Iraq."
Although the resolution authorized the president to use force against Hussein if necessary, Bass said, he is "confident that the President will be successful in his efforts to build support from the United Nations and our allies for any effort on the part of the United States to deal with the current and ongoing threats posed by Iraq."
In a statement released following the vote, President Bush said, "The House of Representatives has spoken clearly to the world and to the United Nations Security Council: the gathering threat of Iraq must be confronted fully and finally. Today's vote also sends a clear message to the Iraqi regime: it must disarm and comply with all existing U.N. resolutions, or it will be forced to comply."
New Hampshire's senators said before the vote that they planned to vote in favor of the resolution.
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) spoke in favor of the Senate version of the resolution this week and said he hopes the vote is overwhelming and strongly bipartisan to ensure a better position for the president with the United Nations and to send a clear signal to Hussein.
"The president is absolutely right to pursue an aggressive policy to disarm him, and to do that he needs the support of the Congress and the American people," said Gregg.
The Senate passed the resolution 77-23 shortly after 1 a.m. on Friday. Both Sens. Bob Smith (R-N.H.) and Gregg voted in favor of the resolution.
Published in The Keene Sentinel, in New Hampshire.
Capitol Police Test Segway
WASHINGTON, Oct. 10, 2002--As U.S. Capitol Police officer Ronald Sellner cruises around, he looks just like a kid enjoying himself during a joyride on a new toy, and everyone who crowds around wants to know what it is and where they can get one.
It is the Segway Human Transporter, a personal transportation device manufactured by Segway, Dean Kamen's Manchester company. The U.S. Capitol Police are currently testing six Segways and considering whether to add them to the department's fleet of bicycles and motorbikes.
"It's kind of like riding a futuristic, Roman chariot; at least that's what people tell me when they see me riding across the [Capitol] plaza," Officer Sellner said. "It gets you all kinds of places very quick."
The Segway is best for short distances and is designed to allow users to travel at speeds of up to 12 mph. The electrically-charged unit can run for approximately 11 miles when fully charged, although that depends on the riding terrain and speed, Sellner said.
The units, which cost between $4000 and $5000, were leased to the department for 60 days beginning in September. Marsha Krug, deputy chief for the Capitol Police said.
With 1400 officers in the department, Krug said, the 60-day period is helpful to determine the proper application for the vehicles. Krug added that it was great for the department to be approached about using the Segway because the ability to apply new technology in the workplace is always good.
"We have a new chief of police, Terry Gainer, and he's very interested in utilizing whatever types of technology can enhance the police department's ability to do the job more effectively," Krug said.
Sellner, an officer with the Capitol Police for 10 years, was one of six officers selected to test the transporters during the 60-day period. The officers received approximately eight hours of training to use the Segways and Sellner said the Segway has helped with his work because of its ability to move well on many types of terrain including dirt, hills, and grass. It also keeps officers from becoming fatigued, especially when they have to cover a lot of ground.
During the test period, the department is using the Segways outside all parts of the Capitol to find the correct application and ensure that it is tested on a variety of terrains.
"It'll go about 12 mph, so in a normal foot chase I don't know of any person who can go 12 mph for a very long period of time," Sellner said. "It may take me a while to catch them, but I know I won't be tired."
The National Park Service, the Chicago Police Department, and the Boston EMS Department are also testing the Segways, and the Seattle Fleets and Facilities Department has recently purchased 10. The Segway can provide an enormous amount of value to day-to-day police applications, Tobe Cohen, director of marketing for Segway said.
"The object of community police is to be approachable to the public but also highly mobile, and that's what Segway provides," Cohen said.
Krug, who agreed, said "The nice thing about the Segway is while you're able to move a little more quickly, you're not moving so fast that people aren't going to approach you; which is something the Capitol police are really proud of is our ability to talk to people and interact with the public."
Although Krug said there is some concern about officers' physical fitness because they are on foot less with the Segways, Cohen said that law enforcement officers use many methods of transportation, including foot patrols, to perform their jobs.
"People don't say we shouldn't use squad cars or fire trucks," Cohen said. "The important thing is to accomplish their mission, and Segway helps the police to accomplish that mission."
A decision will be made on whether to purchase the Segways for the department before the end of the year, Krug said, and funding will have to be included in next year's budget if the department decides to purchase large numbers of Segways.
"We would love to see it become part of the system that the police use to protect the nation's Capitol," Cohen said. "It gives us a lot of encouragement to participate in protecting Washington D.C. and the Capitol."
Published in The Keene Sentinel, in New Hampshire.
Living In The Bulls-Eye
WASHINGTON, Oct. 10--I try not to let it stop me from living my life as usual.
So, as I do most weekdays, I went for a run through Rock Creek Park a few days ago. I told myself I'd be safe. That the sniper who's been killing people in this area probably wouldn't target a jogger in a wooded area. That it'd be too difficult to get off a clean shot. I told myself he seemed to prefer gas stations and shopping centers or middle schools and post offices.
My building is located in a quiet area on Connecticut Avenue, about two blocks from the National Zoo and about five miles from where a sniper killed five people last week.
So, before leaving my building, I stopped off to tell a few friends I was about to go jogging. I laughed as I instructed them to call the police if I didn't come back in an hour.
But I was only half joking.
As I stretched on the front steps of the building I casually glanced at the rush-hour traffic headed out of the city. I saw more white delivery trucks and vans than I could count. I wondered if the description of the sniper's vehicle could have been any more vague.
I thought about what we know. Police say the sniper drives a white truck with no distinguishable markings. His victims are normal people, doing normal things in normal places. And he's good at what he does. He has killed seven people in 10 separate shootings in eight days (as of Thursday afternoon), most of them killed by a single shot.
I crossed the street and started jogging towards the park. When I reached the trail in the woods I tried to put the sniper out of my mind. But I was painfully aware of the fact that there were no other joggers on the popular jogging trail. I wondered if the overcast weather or the sniper had kept them away.
I was startled several times by the sound of unseen wildlife rustling leaves. I was jumpy. I scanned the ridges along the sides of the trail. I told myself I was being silly and tried to think of something else. But I started thinking how easily a sniper could sneak into these woods and wait for an unsuspecting jogger. I ran a little faster.
When I got home I spoke with my girlfriend on the phone and told her things were fine. I told her that the people who live here know that the odds of being killed by a sniper are slim to none. I told her that it's something we laugh about. That when we walk down the street we jokingly hide behind each other. That we sometimes playfully jump behind trees when white trucks pass.
But the truth is that we are afraid.
But there is still life to live. I still walk along Connecticut Avenue to the Metro station most days. I still run through the park most afternoons. And I still get my morning coffee at a café a couple of blocks away most mornings.
But now, I prefer to go places with other people. I prefer to be inside. I've been told fewer people leave their offices during lunchtime. I don't blame them. Some coffee shops and restaurants have removed their patio furniture to discourage people from sitting outside, at the request of the police.
Things have changed here in the last week. I am always thinking about the sniper. And judging from most of my colleagues, so are they.
I knew there would be some sacrifices in living in Washington. That if there was going to be another major terrorist attack it would probably be here. But no one expected this kind of terrorism. Everyday people doing everyday things are dying.
It's scary, but do not think that Washington has become a ghost town full of people hiding away in their homes. Many of us are afraid, but we are living our lives.
And after work today I'll run through the park again. I'll tell my friends where I'm going and I'll stretch on the front steps. Then I'll talk to my girlfriend and tell her I'm fine.
Published in Foster's Daily Democrat, in New Hampshire.
N.H. Natives Edgy About Sniper
WASHINGTON, Oct. 10--Last year there were 20 murders in Montgomery County. Last week the Maryland community of almost 900,000 people that lies just north of Washington saw five murders in a 16-hour period.
"This is the kind of thing we're used to seeing in other jurisdictions," said 1972 Portsmouth High School graduate Steven Silverman, who now serves as president of the Montgomery County Council. "We've had other tragedies, but this brings out the real definition of terror, that you just don't know who's going to be next or where it's going to be."
Since last Wednesday, a sniper has killed seven people and seriously wounded two others in the greater Washington area. Police and federal authorities have been working around the clock to find the person or people responsible for the attacks, but so far report little progress in the case that has area residents on edge.
"We are trying to go about business as usual, but the people who were killed were doing exactly that," Silverman said. "So now all of us are thinking twice about which gas station we go to, where we park our cars and where we go shopping."
Area residents are most startled by the complete randomness of the attacks. Victims have been killed at gas stations, a grocery store and outside a post office. Another was killed while mowing the lawn of a car dealership; an elderly man was fatally wounded while walking down the street. Monday morning a 13-year-old boy was shot moments after being dropped off at school by his aunt.
"I consider this of the same ilk of bin Laden and his cronies. There's no difference here," said Dover native Alec Koromilas, who works in Washington during the week as an administrative appeals judge. "Someone wants to strike terror in the hearts of innocent people. The mentality is one and the same."
Police have no reported suspects in the case. They say the sniper or snipers most often kill their victims with a single shot at long range, making it difficult to find eyewitnesses. Police have not released much information about the sniper, except that he may be driving a white truck or minivan.
"I didn't know how many white trucks were out there until this happened," Silverman said. "It's a constant focus. It's hard to believe it's only been a week because it feels like a month."
Koromilas said he's noticed fewer people at outdoor cafes and restaurants near his home on Connecticut Avenue, less than five miles from the Montgomery County shootings. "What I don't see on the streets is kids riding bicycles anymore," he said. "There's an absence of a lot of kids, which is a shame."
Since the shooting of the 13-year-old outside his school Monday morning, area schools have been in a lock-down status, which prohibits children from spending any time outside and requires doors to be locked at all times.
Silverman, who has a 10-year-old son in an area school, said most parents are concerned about their children's safety. He said he makes sure his son is safely inside the school when he drops him off at the front door and keeps him inside as much as possible.
Koromilas said he's noticed coworkers joking about the sniper, saying they're about to run out of gas because they've been avoiding gas stations. "People are joking about situations they fear," he said. Three people have been killed at gas stations since last Wednesday.
Koromilas said that he's not afraid for his personal safety as he goes through his daily life here but that he pays more attention to his surroundings. "If some psycho wants to take a gun and start shooting people I don't think we have to stop our lives and hide," he said. "We just have to be aware."
Since Sept. 11 of last year the people of Washington have become more aware of potentially dangerous situations, Koromilas said. But he said the randomness and proximity of these attacks make the threat unique. "He could be anywhere at any time or any place," he said. "This guy isn't just somewhere else. This guy is within a stone's throw away."
Published in Foster's Daily Democrat, in New Hampshire.
