The 2006 Future Land Use map, which will now have to be updated.

Last week, the Council approved a raft of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, the fat document that guides land use in the District. The update process has taken over a year, with hundreds of changes proposed, and many rejected. Several of those that made it through very clearly reflect Almost Mayor Vince Gray’s campaign promises. Here are a few that caught my eye (italics are my summary, quotes are from the Plan, with additions underlined):

• Charter schools now have first dibs on decommissioned public school buildings. “In the event that DCPS facilities are surplused, provide a right of first refusal to public charter schools for use of the facilities.”

• Greenhouse gas emissions must now be considered in environmental impact assessments. “The process should ensure that such information is available when a development is proposed and is available to the public and decision makers before any decision is made.”

• Vince Gray’s “turn-D.C.-into-Bermuda” idea gets codified. “Enhance the District’s status as an international financial center by supporting the enactment of pending federal legislation to ensure that insurance reserves are held and invested in the U.S., rather than offshore in foreign jurisdictions, to cover losses from natural and man-made catastrophes.”

• Neighborhood branding becomes official policy. “Brand the distinct character of retail districts through signature promotional events, signage, streetscape, district gateways, as well as building unique clusters where appropriate.”

• A long list of industrial and low-density residential sites all around the city, as well as a handful of former schools and metro stations like Congress Heights, were rezoned for higher-density residential and commercial uses, paving the way for more retail and housing.

• High-density development is encouraged in Poplar Point. “Provide a scale and pattern of development in Poplar Point that recognizes the area’s proximity to a Metrorail station and other major surface arterials and that the area is physically separated from surrounding neighborhoods and may therefore accommodate buildings and site plans unlike but is compatible with the fine-grained pattern found in nearby Historic Anacostia.”

• One amendment emphasizes mixed-use development in Brightwood for a diverse population, rather than just senior citizens, whom the Plan had previously emphasized.

• Ward Three needs attention too! “Given the strength of the private market within Rock Creek West, generally discourage carefully consider public sector initiatives that would stimulate additional development in the area.  Economic development and growth in this area can be achieved without the leveraging of public dollars that may be needed in other parts of the city.”

Standard foreclosure post graphic!

Well, that was fast. In today's blizzard of Council votes, Councilmember Muriel Bowser shoved through an emergency version of legislation she introduced a couple weeks ago that would require mediation between a lender and the person about to be foreclosed upon, and require the new owner to rent the property back to the old owner if he or she wants to stay. The mayor has ten days to veto it, after which the measure will take effect–though it'll take a little longer for the Department of Insurance, Security, and Banking to write up the regs that will govern who mediates and how. Once that happens, this could be a significant change for homeowners at risk of foreclosure. In certain circumstances, Bowser's bill allows for a Mediation Administrator to impose sanctions on a lender who refuses to cooperate, including loan modification "in the manner determined proper by the court."

It's important, though, not to lose sight of the fact that resources are scarce for counseling that can prevent that foreclosure notice from being sent in the first place. And that should be a priority, because it would be too bad if the system DISB sets up, either because of inadequate funding or incompetent administration, didn't run as smoothly as planned. For example, the three-member Rental Housing Commission has been without a quorum for many months now, creating headaches for tenants and landlords appealing decisions of the Rent Administrator (a position held by three different people in the last year).

So here's hoping the new Mediator isn't the first place a homeowner gets help with her mortgage. What Shaun Donovan said: A lot can be done on the front end to keep people from ending up in foreclosure in the first place.

Photo via flickr user respres.

Can Wal-Mart build different?

On Monday, the news broke that the land on far New York Avenue Northeast once slated for a mixed-use development was now expected to get a Wal-Mart. Listserv chatter since then has been conflicted: Does D.C. really want to host the biggest and boxiest of the U.S.' bix box stores?

Last night, though, Ward 5 Councilmember Harry Thomas offered hope for something different.

"Everything I have heard, there are other pieces to that puzzle, because it couldn’t just be a Wal-Mart," Thomas told Housing Complex after one of his town hall meetings. "You’re talking about one big box store on that corner. I don’t think that would fit the needs of the residents. ...Whatever it is, I don’t think it’s going to be a traditional Wal-Mart. No one has signed a deal. What I think you have is Wal-Mart being a potential anchor for Wal Mart as a mixed-use development there."

Thomas also mentioned that there are other contenders for the space, naming Lowe's as a store that could potentially be interested in coming to the District. But the most critical thing, he admitted, is cash.

"What really matters for us is, who has liquid assets," Thomas said. "Because what happens is, you gotta be able to pay for it. That’s what happened with Abdo. We were right at the critical point, and couldn’t get the right mix of city dollars and private dollars."

P.S. - I'm writing about the labor/small business/neighborhood implications of Wal-Mart this week, so if you have any particular knowledge or insight, please get in touch: ldepillis@washingtoncitypaper.com.

Photo via flickr user sebypires.

Old streetcar line photo courtesy of DDOT.

Councilmember Tommy Wells' bill to allow overhead wires to power the planned streetcar network is set for a hearing this afternoon in the Wilson Building. Twenty-eight people are signed up to testify (full list after the jump), from preservationists to environmentalists to H Street-affiliated groups that most need the overhead wire technology available now, rather than the wireless technology that is in development.

One of those signed up is George Clark, president of the Committee of 100 on the Federal City, with whom Housing Complex spoke last week for a separate story. Here's a preview of what we can expect from his testimony:

"We’ve always been public transportation advocates. But we’re not advocates of doing things in a slipshod manner. We’ve just become terribly disappointed in what we’ve seen as a lack of planning on the H street route," Clark said, criticizing the state of planning for the terminus of the route at Union Station. "That’s the kind of thing that ends up with the city wasting tens of millions of dollars. We’ve said, let’s do streetcars right."

"When I look down Pennsylvania Avenue, I see a vista. I don’t see overhead wires, utility or otherwise. I see clear views. I think someone was pretty smart back in 1889," Clark continued. "By the time this system could be fully built, streetcar technology is going to be wireless. Quite frankly, I don’t see why there should be wires in H street and Anacostia, and wireless downtown and in Georgetown. One of the things in the committee we’re always trying to do is be more inclusive and citywide."

Housing Complex will be getting a root canal during the hearing, but remains confident that recaps will abound. If you'd like to tune in during work, the webcast is here.

——

Council of the District of Columbia
Committee on Public Works and Transportation
Agenda and Witness List

COUNCILMEMBER JIM GRAHAM, CHAIRPERSON
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION

ANNOUNCES A PUBLIC HEARING ON

B18-823, the “Transportation Infrastructure Amendment Act of 2010”

Tuesday, June 22, 2010, 2:00 p.m.
Council Chamber, John A. Wilson Building
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C.  20004
____________________________________________________________

AGENDA & WITNESS LIST

I.    CALL TO ORDER

II.    OPENING REMARKS

III.    PUBLIC WITNESSES

Panel 1
1.    Rich Bradley, President, DC Surface Transit, Inc.
2.    Jason Broehm, Chair, Transportation Committee Sierra Club – Washington DC Chapter
3.    Anwar Saleem, Executive Director, H Street Main Street
4.    Alison Reardon

Panel 2
5.    Bradley Green
6.    Tom Metcalf
7.    Ellen McCarthy
8.    Brett Rodgers

Panel 3
9.    Liz de Bagara
10.    Kenneth Archer
11.    Tony Richardson, Commissioner ANC 6C05
12.    David Holmes, Commissioner ANC 6A03

Panel 4
13.    Meg Maguire, Committee of 100 on the Federal City
14.    Monte Edwards, Capitol Hill Restoration Society
15.    George Clark, Chairman, Committee of 100 on the Federal City
16.    David Alpert, www.greatergreaterwashington.org

Panel 5
17.    Andrea Ferster, DC Surface Transit Inc.
18.    Crystal Sullivan
19.    Mark Bradshaw, Rappaport Management Company and Parcel Services Associates, LLC
20.    Martin Schroeder, American Public Transportation Association

Panel 6
21.    Scott Leonard
22.    Michael Stevens, Executive Director, Capitol Riverfront BID
23.    Jeff Oser
24.    David Bernhardt

Panel 7
25.    Jerry Clark, Chair, DC for Democracy
26.    Jen DeMayo,  Communications Director, Atlas Performing Arts Center
27.    Samuel Swiller, Associate Director, Real Estate Development Gallaudet University
28.    Lance Brown

IV.    GOVERNMENT WITNESSES

Gabe Klein, Director of the District Department of Transportation

Objection!: Landlord attorney Hessler says speedy creation of a new court is not practical.

Every weekday morning at 9 a.m., D.C. landlord and tenant court begins with a mind-numbing exercise: roll call. The clerk stands up front and reads the names.

Some landlords grasp little satchels and clunky brief cases and nervously respond when called; lost-looking tenants do the same. Only the lawyers representing big building owners and management companies, who bring scores of cases, seem comfortable.

The process drags on for at least an hour, and then the cases begin. That’s when you start to notice something striking: None of the plaintiffs are tenants. They’re all landlords—and that’s by design. No tenants can file claims here. Really, this place should be called “Landlord Court.”

So where do tenants go to get speedy relief if their roof is leaking or they have a pre-existing bedbug condition and the landlord hasn’t done squat?

They can file a petition in the Office of Administrative Hearings or a suit in Superior Court’s civil division. But attorneys and tenant organizers say both of these options are time-consuming and often unsatisfying. At best, tenants can usually hope for only a partial victory: a reduction in rent because of unacceptable living conditions, for example, may not be accompanied by an order to make any fixes.

Vytas V. Vergeer, legal clinic director at D.C.-based nonprofit Bread for the City, actually urges tenants to try to get dragged into landlord and tenant court; that way, they’ll at least get a quick hearing of their complaints.

“The advice I give people is to withhold your rent and get sued [there],” Vergeer said. “I tell people the best way to assert your rights is to get sued and risk being evicted. I’m ashamed every day I give that advice, but that’s the best way to do it.”

That’s what Vergeer told Ward 8 Councilmember Marion Barry and other members of the D.C. Council’s Committee on Housing and Workforce Development at a hearing last month on a bill that would fundamentally change the way landlord and tenant court does business: The Tenant Access to Justice Reform Act of 2009 would allow tenants to file suit there, too.

“Even when I was mayor, we didn’t do enough,” Barry said during the hearing.
The D.C. Superior Court, of which landlord and tenant court is part, came into being during the 1970s by an act of Congress. Since then, the landlord-tenant issue has been brought up several times, says Jonathan Smith, executive director of the Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia.

In 1988, then D.C. Bar chairman Charles Horsky testified before lawmakers on Capitol Hill, advocating a number of positions that would improve tenant representation in court.

“What’s important about the Horsky report is so little has changed since then. There’s fundamental imbalance in that court,” says Smith.

In the mid-1990s, lawyer Kim Keenan, the head of the D.C. Bar, led a task force that examined many of the same issues. Its findings prompted the creation of the Landlord and Tenant Resource Center, staffed with volunteer lawyers assisting tenants in landlord and tenant court right next door.

But still, tenants couldn’t sue. Legal Aid attorney Julie Becker helped draft the Tenant Access to Justice bill with a number of other tenant lawyers and organizers following the Washington Post’s 2008 series on abominable building conditions and landlord abuses.

“We were hoping in the wake of that, it might be a good time for several reforms, not just this one,” says Becker. The group approached Ward 3 Councilmember Mary Cheh in April 2008 and began working with a member of her staff, Jeremy Faust.

When the legislation was introduced in January, the court’s leaders didn’t exactly applaud.

Lee F. Satterfield and Eric T. Washington, the chief judges of D.C.’s Superior Court and the Court of Appeals, respectively, sent a letter to Cheh. Between the cumbersome chunks of D.C. code and heavy footnotes, the message was clear: Don’t step on our turf. The judges claimed the adjustment would be expensive (“judicial and non-judicial staff, space, and equipment would be necessary to meet the increased caseload”) and hard to manage (“Without such additional resources, the scheduling of those cases would be delayed”). They also claimed it would be illegal, under the District’s Home Rule Act, which prohibits councilmembers from affecting the court’s operations.

Satterfield set out to find his own solution to the court’s tenant problem. He appointed Judge Melvin Wright to head a committee of landlord and tenant representatives and other members of the bar to “develop a consumer friendly, expedited process in the Court’s Civil Division for tenants to seek remedies from landlords for housing code violations,” as he described it in a statement to Washington City Paper.

The group convened earlier this year, meeting every two weeks, often at length—until its work was abruptly halted for the rest of the year, according to committee member Steve Hessler. Clearly, Satterfield had been irked by testimony at the Council hearing. Committee members wondered whether it would meet again.

“I have a tremendous investment in this,” says Hessler, a lawyer with a wide base of landlord clients, including J.P. Morgan, Republic Properties, and
Douglas Development. “I’ve done two enormous memos—think term papers—advocating certain positions, jurisdictional points, procedure points.” Hessler says he’s worried about potential issues of parity between landlords and tenants. For example, he says, landlords wishing to file suit in the court must fill out “mind-numbingly difficult” paperwork. He wants to ensure any new process for tenants would be equally rigorous.

The Nov. 30 council hearing brought a predominantly pro-tenant group of speakers, including Legal Aid’s Smith and Bread for the City’s Vergeer. The bulk of D.C.’s landlord advocates either didn’t know about the proceeding—Hessler says he didn’t hear about it until that day—or neglected to show up. One exception was a group from the Apartment and Office Building Association of Metropolitan Washington. Peter Bonnell, an executive with Urban Investment Partners, which owns and manages buildings in the District, spoke out against the legislation.

“The bill is unnecessary since there are existing remedies available to tenants and the mayor has launched a proactive housing inspection program” with the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, Bonnell said.

But even with tenant advocates pushing for the change, Barry indicated that he may not move the bill forward right away. Johanna Shreve, head of the Office of Tenant Advocate, urged him to await the findings of the court-appointed committee, and Barry agreed to meet with members of the court in the coming week to determine how to proceed.

“If that’s the way things were left at the end of the hearings with Mr. Barry, why we didn’t roll up our sleeves and get back to this is beyond me,” says Hessler, who hadn’t heard about Barry’s decision to meet with the judges until being informed by a reporter.

Satterfield says that the court committee has made “significant progress” and that he expects a recommendation “in the near future.”

But participants on both sides describe a more contentious process.

“This is a highly polarizing, very political area. There are very strongly held positions,” says Hessler.

“There’s been almost no progress,” says Smith.

By Friday, after a meeting with Judge Wright, Hessler said the committee’s work would continue and that members would meet again in early 2010. He’s heard the group will be more “streamlined” and possibly include fewer people.
Judge Wright did not respond to requests for comment.

“Setting up a new court is not like chess club,” says Hessler. “This wish and a prayer by the legal services community that all of a sudden we create a court—it’s not practical, it’s not rational.”

This story will appear in this week's print edition of the Washington City Paper.

Image by Darrow Montgomery

After a week of Real World DC madness, the blog has transitioned back to its usual housing and development-related content. This week, we welcomed both "Proud Satanist" and "Proud Catholic" as commenters to the blog. Both of them were, of course, posting about Catholic Charities' recent threat to stop running city-contracted social service programs if forced to extend employee benefits to married gay couples.  Look for more on the same-sex marriage legislation from my colleague The Sexist Amanda Hess this week. As for me, well Ask Housing Complex! is launching in the next few days—should be fun, and by "fun" I mean "full of misery, which will hopefully lessened with sound advice."

(1) Councilmembers Dig in Heels on Catholic Threat

(2) Catholic Church Threatens to Withhold Social Services if City Passes Same-Sex Marriage Law

(3) Second Chance for First-Time Buyers

(4) Worst Cities for Pedestrians

(5) Meet Real World DC Cast Member Ashley

(6) Second Chance for First-Time Buyers, Part 2

(7) An Explanation for the Boutique Hotel Boom

(8) Here They Are D.C., Your Seven (Eight, Actually) Strangers!

Image by TheChristianAlert.org, Flickr Creative Commons Attribution License.

Council Chair Vincent Gray, and Council Members Mendelson and Evans

It doesn't look like the Catholic Archdiocese is going to be winning this battle.

Yesterday, the Washington Post reported that the Catholic Archdiocese had issued an ultimatum to the D.C. Council:  If you require us to extend same-sex marriage benefits to gay couples, we'll stop running city-contracted social service programs. These programs include many homeless shelters, in addition to adoption and health care support. (This entire issue is, of course, contingent on the District's same-sex marriage bill passing, which it is expected to next month.)

In the last two days (day 1, day 2), the Post has gathered a number of reactions from D.C. Councilmembers suggesting they're not ready to give in and allow city money to be used to discriminate against gay couples.

• Ward 1 Councilmember Jim Graham had originally hoped to reach a compromise with the church, but has since altered his stance after "reviewing same-sex marriage laws in New Hampshire, Connecticut and Vermont," where the Church has not abandoned social services.

• D.C. Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray (D)  can't imagine "'where the compromise would be: It seems to me if they choose not to provide those services, we will have to find someone else,' Gray said."

• Ward 5 Council member Harry Thomas said "the Church, which has tax-exempt property and often interacts with the city government, should be wary of picking a fight."

• "'They don't represent, in my mind, an indispensable component of our social services infrastructure,' said David Catania, the sponsor of the same-sex marriage bill and the chairman of the Health Committee."

• "Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), chairman of the judiciary committee, said the council 'will not legislate based on threats.'"

• Ward 3 Councilmember Mary Cheh "said she hopes the Catholic Church will reconsider its stance. 'Are they really going to harm people because they have a philosophical disagreement with us on one issue.'"

Image by Darrow Montgomery

Well, this is really shameful.

For most of the Fall, we've been reporting on the latest strains on homeless services around the city: First, it was Central Union Mission struggling to find space for a new shelter; Next, we focused on budgetary concerns crippling shelters around the city.

Well, forget all that. Now, we have a new reason to worry key social services will soon evaporate: The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington claims that it will discontinue contracts with the city if it is forced to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples if the D.C. Council's gay marriage bill passes into law.

So the Archdiocese's priority list apparently places "helping people with desperate needs" below "not recognizing same-sex marriages."

The Washington Post has a front page article on this topic in this morning's paper.

"If the city requires this, we can't do it," Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. "The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that's really a problem."

According to the story, "city leaders"—particularly At-large Councilmember David Catania—are claiming that Catholic Charities, which serves 68,000 residents, isn't the end-all, be-all of social services in the District. (Catholic Charities also has contracts providing health care and adoption services, according to the Post.) But last month, as the Council and the Department of Human Services went back and forth on budgetary matters, Catholic Charities was one of the loudest and most pressing voices arguing for more funding to keep open full-time shelters during the winter.

The Post article quotes Ward 3 Councilmember Mary Cheh saying "she hopes the Catholic Church will reconsider its stance."

"'Are they really going to harm people because they have a philosophical disagreement with us on one issue?' Cheh asked. 'I hope, in the silver light of day, when this passes, because it will pass, they will not really act on this threat.'"

Yeah, let's hope so, for the love of god—and I guess, in this case, I mean that quite literally.

Image by TheChristianAlert.org, Flickr Creative Commons Attribution License.

Just when you thought 'Well it looks like we're over the final hurdle!" it appears the D.C. Convention Center hotel may be facing more delays.

This summer, the D.C. Council zoomed forward on a financing deal to jump-start a long awaited 1,167-room Marriott Marquis hotel, which is supposed to stimulate the city's convention business, and minimize the "Mickey Mouse effect." Once the members passed the proposal, construction was on track to begin this fall. But earlier this month, developer the JBG Companies threw a wrench in matters by suing the city over "the contracting process, which it calls an 'invalid sole source procurement,'” according to the Washington Business Journal.

Here's more from the Business Journal:

When D.C. first solicited bids, through the finance office and the deputy mayor’s office for economic development, the city said the winning bidder would have to build on private land and should be able to finance the project with private money.

That requirement significantly narrowed the pool of companies able to bid on the project, JBG charges...

Since that time, the city negotiated a land swap with Marriott, rather than forcing the developer to buy a completely different parcel. And of course, it has provided loads of public financing.   JBG Companies=Not thrilled. It argues that the city "had an obligation under D.C. procurement law to put the new offer out for rebidding," according to the WBJ story.

If the company's name sounds familiar, it's because they're already building hotel—possibly in your backyard! JBG has plans to open a super swanky "four-star operation with a spa, fitness center and upscale restaurant" at 13th and U Streets NW. It also acquired the nearby Whitman-Walker clinic, located on 14th Street, which it is transforming into housing and retail, according to DCmud.

Image by Kjarrett, Flickr Creative Commons

Mid-summer, amidst many tax increases, the D.C. Council preliminarily approved a move to decrease the tax rate on vacant—often troublesome—properties. According to Councilmember Phil Mendelson, the higher rate was "actually mak[ing] it difficult for some property owners to sell or put their property back to use.”

Maybe so. But the decision wasn't exactly a crowd-pleaser. At the time, Ward 4 Councilmember Muriel Bowser was already working on some special language that would specifically target the empty-rowhouses-turned-neighborhood-crack-dens many of us have become familiar with.

But today, the Washington Business Journal reports a twist. The special vacancy tax rate–previously "more than 10 times the residential rate of 85 cents"—is totally gone!

[Councilmembers] did away with the vacant rate altogether, saying it had produced unintended consequences, and replaced it with a $10 rate that will apply only to blighted properties. A blighted property is “unsafe, insanitary, or which is otherwise determined to threaten the public health, safety, or general welfare of the community” because of broken walls, roofs, windows, balconies or other poorly kept features. Boarded up properties will also count as blighted."

Tidy, empty properties won't pay a dime more than tidy, occupied properties.