But it’s not their fault.

Bike DC coordinator Sheba Farrin asked ANC 6A tonight for their approval of the East Capitol Street section of the tour route. The commissioners were angry at the short notice about a plan that would cut the city in half for several hours, effectively trapping some people in their homes for an entire Saturday morning.

But a representative of the Mayor’s Special Events Task Force had ordered Bike DC not to approach the ANCs until the route was finalized. They started working with Special Events on the route in January. It was finalized in July. The ANCs don’t meet in August.

ANC 6A voted 3-2 not to approve the route, falling all over themselves to affirm their support for biking and community events, but they just couldn’t put their stamp of approval on such bad procedure.

WABA had some supernaturally bad luck with Bike DC for a few years (with cancellations due to terrorist attacks and hurricanes) and they let it go. There was no Bike DC for a few years. But now the car-free ride is back, due to the sheer will of its committed coordinators and the money of a private investor who does the same thing for Portland, Oregon. (He’s counting on 10,000 riders and praying for good weather and no whammies September 27.)

For this week’s cover story, I decided to check out the personal homes of a few of the city’s so-called slumlords. Some of them were typical fat cats: dudes with mansions in Potomac who made their fortunes renting run-down apartments in the city.

One guy turned out not to be a slumlord at all—he has a nice house in Cap Hill and some pretty nice affordable housing in Southeast. What surprised me was the number of alleged slumlords who live in pretty crummy cribs. Lots of peeling paint and chintzy furniture. The star of my adventure was Rufus Stancil, who lives in a big, beautiful house on upper 16th. It really needs a new coat of paint. Most of the landlords I talked to were open and tried to make a case for themselves. Stancil wanted me out. Here’s a photo I shot of him after he shoved his arm in my face:

Also: a bit of opining that didn’t end up in the story: Many of the tenant advocates I spoke with were worried that the city’s recent lawsuit against several landlords had been hastily thrown together, that it was more political posturing than dedication to fixing a problem. I did find two serious mistakes in the suit: the city is suing two dead people. They say they’re going to fix that.

The on-going battle over vending operations around Nationals Park took a step toward a resolution this afternoon. A D.C. Superior Court judge ruled against three vendors seeking to halt the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs‘ current practice of assigning vendors to sites outside the stadium via a lottery.

Judge Brook Hedge denied the vendors’ motion for a preliminary injunction against DCRA.

The vendors had serious gripes against the city agency for a number of reasons–some of which were sketched out in the motion, some were not. The city took too long in formulating a system for assigning vendor sites at Nationals Park, they say. After emergency legislation was passed for some 40 possible locations, DCRA awarded only 28 locations–and all the locations were north of M Street. Most of the sites would be lucky to get a handful of Nats fans let alone make any real profit. You can see the 28 locations with this handy map.

Another 14 sites had been awarded in a lottery last week. Those sites were closer to Nationals Park. Another lottery is scheduled for today.

Update 5:19 p.m.: The vendors had argued before the court that DCRA should not have held the lottery–that the D.C. Police Department should be in charge. There also needed to be more back-and-forth over the lottery process itself.

Judge Hedge wrote in her opinion: “Plaintiffs’ claims rest on shaky ground. Contrary to plaintiffs’ arguments, on April 23, 2008, the Mayor did issue a delegation of authority for the vending site and vending selections at Nationals Park to the Director of the DCRA…The proposed regulations do not require that non-R.F.K. Stadium-vendor-applicants be licensed prior to entry into the lottery.” The Judge went on to write that the vendors weren’t losing that much money since working the Nationals Park was only a part-time job. And that the vendors’ gripes were minor.

Judge Hedge wrote: “It is evident from the legislative history discussed above that this was a fast-moving situation and that, in order to maintain peace and tranquility, given the prior events which led to the vendor moratorium, and that the City Council expected vendor sites to be allocated for the full baseball season, that emergency regulations were necessary…”

With the Mount Pleasant apartment fire and back history of thousands of code violations, a string of Post stories on crummy landlords, and the announcement today by Peter Nickles heralding a new “sweeping” offensive against slumlords, I have to wonder: Where’s Councilmember Jim Graham?

If you go to the Post’s “Forced Out Map,” so many–if not the majority–of controversial properties are in Graham’s ward. The news of these properties isn’t a surprise. Each of these properties has a history. Graham is great at throwing heat during a council hearing. And he’s wonderful at showing umbrage in front of a reporter. I have no doubt that he’s prevented a number of tenants from eviction. And maybe he’s even helped clean up a building or two. I can’t help but feel Graham could have done much, much more.

I can’t help but wonder where Graham was on these issues years ago. And if he was on these issues, why didn’t he do more to protect tenants? He certainly wasn’t living in these apartments ala Cory Booker.

After the Mount Pleasant fire, Graham was quoted in the Post saying: “This is the classic example of eviction by neglect.” The newspaper of record goes on to describe the councilmember as having “worked on various issues with tenants for years.”

So I’m sure Graham was well aware of the 7,000 code violations from that building. So couldn’t this powerful and savvy councilmember have done more?

Today, the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs announced in a press release that the notorious Youngin’s Towing is no longer in business.

The company’s appeal to the city’s Office of Administrative Hearings failed today, and Youngin’s is now barred from “operating a towing business or a towing storage facility.”

Anyone who has their car currently impounded at Youngin’s Montana Avenue NE lot are “asked to make arrangements to retrieve their cars immediately,” according to the release.

The ballad of Youngin’s should be intimately familiar to readers of City Paper and City Desk. Owner James W. Gee has attracted numerous lawsuits alleging abusive behavior, illegally impounding vehicles, and, in one case, illegally scrapping a vehicle. The city’s on his ass because he failed to notify DPW that he’d made tows and refused to take anything but cash from towees trying to get their cars back.

And make no mistake that Youngin’s was still in business before today: Last Friday evening, I was riding down Rhode Island Avenue NE when a slick Youngin’s tow truck pulled beside me, car on its hook.

Full press release after the jump.

Illustration by Emily Flake

Read the rest of this entry »

Youngin’s Towing and Auto Body needs permission to sink its hooks into any more cars.

Under a restraining order issued last Thursday in D.C. Superior Court, “Youngin’s shall be prohibited from all towing, except instances where they have an explicit agreement in advance with the owner of the vehicle to be towed.”

While the judge’s order is temporary, it is the city’s first major victory against the renegade tow trucks of James W. Gee. Car owners complain that Gee scraps vehicles after he tows them, charges exorbitant fees, and cusses out customers picking up their cars. After an investigation by the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, the city sued him on July 21. If the D.C. Attorney General wins that case, Gee could be shut down for good.

“I think this is an important action by the city on behalf of those who do business,” says DCRA spokesperson Karyn-Siobhan Robinson. “It’s not a quick process, but it is a process with which we are committed.”

Gee didn’t answer repeated phone calls. In a previous interview, he said he abuses car owners because they abuse him first. “They start calling us motherfuckers,” he said, explaining that African-American car owners “don’t know how to conduct business.”

Petworth resident Tasha Harris wanted some extra cash, so the 35-year-old Freddie Mac manager decided to turn her basement into a rental unit. She hired Alex Shekhtman, a Gaithersburg contractor who agreed not to charge more than $100,000 for the work. Harris put down $4,000 for the plans and $5,000 for the deposit. After Shekhtman’s estimate increased by $28,000, Harris says, she decided to cancel the job, but the contractor kept the money. He believed she wanted to scam him by using his plans with another contractor. She believed he wanted to scam her, because he wouldn’t let go of the money. “I feel being taken advantage of,” Shekhtman says. “She probably feels the same way.”

While this sounds like a case for the watchdogs at the D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, it wasn’t that simple either. After two mediation sessions failed to reach a settlement, DCRA said it couldn’t do anything more. That’s because Harris was trying to become a landlord—i.e., trying to set up a business. That meant she isn’t a “consumer” in the DCRA’s eyes. “Consumer protection complaints in the District do not include specific review of ‘business to business’ relationships,” writes Bob Harris (no relation), manager of the office of consumer protection.

Expanding on that, agency spokesperson Karyn-Siobhan Robinson writes in an e-mail that as a landlord, Harris “is not covered under the Consumer Protection Procedures Act,” which “defines a consumer purchase as one that is for personal, family or household use.”

Tasha Harris still doesn’t have a converted basement. “I had no idea that just because you renovate your basement it just means that you don’t get any protection,” she says. She’s hired Jim Delgado, a former DCRA building inspector, to review the contract and offer advice.

“They’re treating her as a business,” Delgado says. “I don’t think, I don’t believe, that [the] city council intended for that to happen.”

The city’s Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs has a couple of tips for all you D.C.-based practitioners of the mortuary arts and sciences:

1. Make sure your licenses are in order.
2. Keep those corpses plenty cool.

According to a DCRA press release, the agency recently cited six District funeral homes, most for not having either a Basic Business License or a certificate of occupancy.

But one outlet, Reese Funeral Service Inc., of 360 3605 14th St. NW, got a more disturbing citation. Not only did it “not have a licensed funeral director who has an interest in the business as required by law,” but the funeral parlor “did not store the remains at the proper temperature.”

Full release after the jump.

Read the rest of this entry »

There’s nothing sexier than posing as a DCRA official, right? Apparently.

According to an alert distributed by DCRA’s Communications Team, telemarketers and con artists are calling consumers posing as the “Office of Consumer Affairs at 941 North Capitol Street in Washington, D.C.” You’ve won a sweepstakes, the con artists say, all you have to do is wire money to companies like Lloyd’s of London and the winnings are yours.

“But many consumers have discovered that the winnings never materialize and the thieves disappear with the money,” DCRA reports.

What’s worse: “These crooks attempt to add legitimacy to their sweepstakes con by using the names, telephone number and addresses of real government agencies,” says Bob Harris, manager of the District of Columbia Office of Consumer Protection, in the release.

DCRA offers some advice: “If you have to pay to collect your winnings, you haven’t won anything.”

Who knew people trusted DCRA so much to begin with?

Today, the city assembled inspectors, police officers, and reporters for “Operation Pitbull,” a crackdown on shady operations along Bladensburg Road NE. The Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs wanted to catch used-car dealers who were screwing their customers. What happened was less spectacular.

At one used-car lot, inspectors learned that a federal task force had arrived on a previous day and seized a number of autos. Most of the cars on the premises didn’t have license plates, and some were stored illegally in the public alley. “This ain’t no chop shop up in here,” said employee Jerry Robertson. “It’s legit. Everything’s straight.” After inspectors wrote infractions and asked pointed questions, Operation Pitbull moved on.

At a second dealership, auto-unit officers examined a Frankenstein job in which the back end of one car was being welded to the front end of another. All the officials in the garage agreed that this salvage was illegal. But the owner wasn’t around, and the mechanics sat in the shade, pleading ignorance. This shop stayed open, too.

DCRA did close one business that day: an AAMCO Transmissions outlet, a clean-looking garage that happened to be storing a D.C. government truck and two Water and Sewer Authority vehicles. The AAMCO’s owner, Eung Chung, didn’t have a certificate of occupancy that allowed him to store cars or perform some of his other services. He said he didn’t know that he was doing anything wrong. At least one official believed him.

“They’re gonna shut him down,” DCRA spokeswoman Karen-Siobhan Robinson Karyn-Siobhan Robinson told reporters.

“Oh, cool!” said one TV photographer. “What does that mean? They’re gonna lock the gate and walk him out in handcuffs?”

Chung drove off to apply for a new certificate of occupancy. The garage doors came down, and an employee grinned as he closed the gates.

CORRECTION, 5/24: The original post misspelled DCRA spokesperson Karyn-Siobhan Robinson’s name.

From today’s Washington Examiner:

Four vacant homes in the heart of Shaw, all owned by a controversial Baptist church, have been condemned by the D.C. government as a possible danger to the community. The D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, which posted the condemnation notices Wednesday, gave Shiloh Baptist Church 15 days to repair its properties at 1528, 1532, 1534 and 1536 Ninth St. NW.

If you saw our groundbreaking coverage of the matter a year and a half ago, you’ll know that Shiloh Baptist Church has taken a lot of heat from Shaw residents for refusing to fix up its numerous properties around the church building at 9th and P Streets NW. Finally, the city’s stepped in to force the issue.

Great story, Michael Neibauer—until the last graf. Are you seriously going to let Leroy Thorpe blame others for “dividing the community along racial lines in an effort to push people out”?

Unlike many car owners with beefs with Youngin’s Towing, Michigan Park resident Kevin Williams actually wanted the controversial company to tow his car. The Infiniti coupe had broken down on Pennsylvania Avenue SE, and he needed a wrecker to take it to a service station on Alabama Avenue SE. According to a court complaint, the driver hoisted Williams’s car and started off in that direction, then he ran into a parked van. The impact detached Williams’s front bumper and broke his signal lights.

Youngin’s offered to repair it for free, but then Williams waited more than three months for the car to be ready. When it was finally done, he says, the front signal lights were still out, cheap paint covered the bumper, the steering column was in pieces, and the ignition didn’t work. He says Youngin’s owner James W. Gee told him he had to pay to have the ignition fixed. When Williams didn’t like that idea, Gee pushed his inoperable car into the street. Williams couldn’t drive away until a Youngin’s mechanic took pity on him and got a key to start it.

“It looks like a real S-H-I-T-T-Y job,” says Williams, 29, who has become the most recent car owner to sue Youngin’s in D.C. Superior Court. “To get that type of service done and to go through that is really hurtful.”

Williams filed his complaint May 8. Five days before that, Youngin’s appealed the city’s attempt to revoke its license. Gee’s company is under fire from the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, which has already fined Youngin’s at least $4,000 for violations of the city’s towing laws.

Gee referred questions to his lawyer, Robert W. Mance, who said his client had no comment.

Living in Brentwood’s Dahlgreen Courts apartments, tenants say, means living with peeling wallpaper, gaping holes in the walls, leaky plumbing, and treacherous flooring.

After residents formed a tenants’ association last summer, it documented the poor conditions and discovered that the city didn’t have a certificate of occupancy for the buildings. Michael Huke, president of building manager CIH Properties, says the city lost its copy of the 70-plus-year-old document. Tenants believe that certificate was voided when ownership was transferred some 15 years ago.

“The thing is, we just want to live in habitable conditions,” says Vaughn Bennett, the association’s president. To that end, the group arranged visits from mayoral staff and incoming Councilmember Harry “Tommy” Thomas Jr. and filed a legal complaint.

City inspectors have assessed nearly $70,000 in fines since October, but that amount hasn’t been collected. A Dec. 12 letter from the city to the building’s owner, Willis Limited Partnership, explains that the city is giving more time for repairs before the “possible imposition of fines.”

Thomas says he intends to force the landlords to devise a 100-day plan for fixing their buildings. Huke says most of those repairs have been made, but he doesn’t think the city or the tenants played fair. He says vandals ripped up the halls just before inspectors showed up without warning. “There were armies of inspectors,” he says. “We had inspectors coming back daily. We had inspectors inspecting the same things and reissuing violations.”

One thing has definitely been fixed: the missing certificate of occupancy. On Nov. 21, building management applied for a new certificate. On Dec. 8, a new one was issued, along with a $2,000 fine.

When operating a large apartment building under the city’s radar, it’s probably best to stay out of court-bound squabbles with tenants. So when married couple Ciprian and Daniela Berghea asked their landlord, June Layne, to repair a rotted bedroom floor, the smart move would have been to do it quickly and quietly. Instead of prompt repairs, they got an eviction notice.

Researching for the hearing, the Bergheas discovered that their 33-unit building in Columbia Heights has no business license and is not registered as an apartment building with the city. The couple won the hearing, but a day later someone slipped a rent increase under the Bergheas’ door, printed on Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs letterhead that, according to one city housing inspector, was forged. When they called to report further code violations and notify the city that the building was itself illegal, the Bergheas say they were told by a DCRA official that because Layne didn’t have a business license, the building was not a business that the agency could regulate, and so it couldn’t send an inspector out.

“That is not department policy,” says DCRA spokesperson Karyn-Siobhan Robinson, who suggests that the Bergheas might have been confused by the complexity of DCRA’s mandate. As a result of the inquiry, she says, the agency has opened an investigation. Reached by phone, Layne immediately hung up on a reporter.

In last week’s paper, we wrote about a loophole that has been allowing developers to convert buildings to condos while avoiding a hefty 5 percent conversion fee. They vacate a building, or at least claim it’s vacant, and then apply for a “vacancy exemption” from the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA). It may be, though, that this dodge is too clever by half. Declaring a property vacant, though, should mean the owner has to pay a special vacant-property tax rate, which is more than five times the standard fee.

Last week, Matthew Forman, federal real-estate attorney and vice president of the Kalorama Citizens Association, e-mailed Ward 1 Councilmember Jim Graham, alerting him of the contradiction. “Would you please investigate how, if the owner of 1342 Vermont is claiming the property to be vacant, they were not charged the $5/100 real property tax rate for vacant properties? The property isn’t paying the vacant tax rate and in fact is still receiving the homestead exemption, giving them a further, significant reduction in their property taxes.…In this case, it would appear that the property owner needs to be sent a bill for either the conversion fee or the back taxes - they can’t have it both ways,” he wrote. Besides the City Paper, he cc’ed Eric Goulet in Councilmember Jack Evans’ office and Thomas Branham, the District’s chief assessor.

Graham forwarded the e-mail back to Branham asking for an opinion.

“In the future,” Forman writes, “you need to make sure that the branch of DCRA that is accepting filings stating that properties are vacant is passing this information on to [the Office of Tax and Revenue] to make sure that the property is paying the full vacant tax rate.”

Forman says he has been working with the council trying to increase collection of the full vacancy tax rate, and the contradiction in the latest loophole jumped out at him. Either the property’s vacant, he says, or it’s not. “It’s just the total, perfect irony,” he says.