911-913 L Street Raze Endorsed by Logan Circle ANC Committee

At its regular monthly meeting September 24, a committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 2F/Logan Circle endorsed an application by Square 369 Hotel Associates, LLC, to raze two adjoining buildings at 911 and 913 L Street NW.

ANC2F's Community Development Committee (CDC) voted 6-0, with three

The property in 2007 (from Flickr, licensed for reuse)

abstentions, to support the raze on the condition that the buildings be carefully deconstructed and the materials be reused as much as possible.

The buildings, which have been vacant for many years, are protected because they are located in the Shaw Historic District.

911 L Street was built before 1860 and is "among the oldest buildings remaining in the district," according to a document from DC's Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB). A June 26 HPRB staff report says that the demolition of 911 and 913 L Street would be "inconsistent with the purposes" of DC's historic preservation law.

911 L Street is also alleged to have been the place where a "Polish revolutionary, translator, and journalist" named Henry Korwin Kalusowski died in December 1894 at age 88. A report on Kalusowski's funeral from the New York Times (available behind the Times' pay wall here) says that Kalusowski's father was Chamberlain to the last king of Poland. Kalusowski himself was a General in the army of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania at 24, fought on the side of Louis Napolean against the Russian army, was Minister of Finance in an unsuccessful Polish revolutionary government in the 1830's, emigrated to the US, fought in the US Civil War with the Thirty-First New York Regiment, and worked for the Treasury Department. While working at Treasury, he "translated all the documents from the Russian language relating to the purchase of Alaska". In 1891, he founded the Polish Library and Museum in Chicago by giving 3,000 volumes from his personal library.

913 L Street was built in 1892.

Now, developers want to put two hotels (a Courtyard by Marriott and a Residence Inn by Marriot, according to the Office of Zoning web site) on this block, as well as a condominium. The proposed buildings are large, and developers have assembled many adjoining properties on the same block to make it happen. There are now nine historically protected buildings on the proposed future site of the hotels and condos. The developers told ANC2F that these two buildings had to go but the seven others would be "retained in full or part".

Attorney Carolyn Brown of Holland and Knight led a team in a long and wide-ranging conversation with the members of the committee and the public over various aspects of the project, including the overall look of the proposed construction, the traffic pattern, the height, the alleyways, the possibility of physically moving the buildings, the possibility of some design features attracting homeless people, the proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the project, and historical preservation aspects not only of the buildings planned for demolition, but the buildings to be renovated and reused as well. Eventually, the discussion returned to the demolition of the buildings, and the committee voted to support.

The demolition of any property in a historic district must be approved by the Mayor's Agent at the Historic Preservation Office. It was reported that a hearing by the Mayor's Agent had been postponed and was now scheduled for December 12. An Office of Zoning hearing on the PUD for this development scheduled for 6:30pm, January 29, 2015, at their offices at Judiciary Square (441 4th Street NW).

This very complex development project is generating a lot of neighborhood opposition. It is very likely to be back before ANC2F for further debate. To see some of the documents in the case, including drawings of the proposed constructions and letters of outlining objection from neighboring condominiums, go to the DC government's Interactive Zoning Information System and enter case number 14-09 in the search bar.

See a more recent photo of 911-913 L Street, plus some research, from a May 7, 2014, blog post of the DC Vacant Properties blog.

Proposal Mandates More Affordable Housing in Rowhouse Conversions

DC's Office of Planning (OP) is considering a proposal to require more affordable housing in residential house conversions. The proposal says that, under certain circumstances and in certain districts, any rowhouse conversion cannot result in more than two units to be rented at "market rate". Any further units would have to rent at a lower rate.

Steingasser (standing right) addresses the meeting

Jennifer Steingasser, OP's Deputy Director for Development Review and Historic Preservation, said September 27 that the proposal is one of several variants being considered. Steingasser spoke at an information session about a wide-ranging OP proposal to limit the conversion of single-family rowhouses into multiple-unit dwellings.

Talking about R-4's on a beautiful Saturday morning

The meeting was sponsored jointly by Advisory Neighborhood Commissions 1A/Columbia Heights and 1B/U Street. At an August 4 joint ANC neighborhood meeting about the same topic (see SALM blog post of August 5), attendees said not everyone could come to meetings held on weekday evenings. They urged meetings on Saturdays. Steingasser and the ANCs agreed to hold a Saturday meeting, but attendance was fewer than 25 people, in part perhaps because the meeting started at 9am and the weather was drop-dead gorgeous.

The proposal would change the rules for house expansion and conversion in districts zoned R-4 only. Most of the residential properties between 14th Street and 7th Street/Georgia Avenue, from below Logan Circle to well beyond Columbia Heights, are zoned R-4. 

Many aspects of the proposed revisions of R-4 zoning rules were unchanged since Steingasser's presentation at the August 4 meeting. These included: the reducing the height that a house can be expanded "by right" (i.e., without asking DC government permission) from 40 to 35 feet, allowing expansions up to 40 feet by "special exception" (obtained from DC's Board of Zoning Adjustment), and changing zoning definitions so that mezzanines will now count as a story of a home when calculating how many stories a building has.

Inclusional Zoning wrinkle

A new wrinkle is the proposed inclusion of Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) requirements. Inclusionary Zoning is an attempt to make affordable units a part of all new multi-unit residential constructions, often meaning large apartment buildings. The requirements have two parts.

One part of this new proposal would mandate that, in the case of "by right" conversions of rowhouses in R-4 zones, all residential units after the first three (meaning, the fourth one and all after) would be "subject to IZ at 60% AMI". See explanation of AMI below.

The second part of the new proposal would mandate stricter limited on conversions that required a zoning variance. These, I believe, would include both proposal for buildings that exceeded 40 feet in height as well as proposals for buildings that covered more than 60% of the total area of the lot. In the case of these buildings, "all units beyond two" (meaning, the third unit and all after) would be "subject to IZ at 60% AMI".

"AMI" stands for Area Median Income. The latest AMI figures I could find were from 2012 -- see here.

Assuming that the 2012 figure (AMI = $107,500) is the latest and my calculations are correct, units at 60% AMI would be judged "affordable" for a family of four making $64,500 per year. If I am understanding information on a DC Department of Housing and Community Development web page correctly, the property owner could rent apartments at 60% AMI for about

• efficiency: $1,130
• one bedroom: $1,290
• two bedroom: $1,450

If you understand affordable housing better than I do, I invite you to examine my figures and, if incorrect, please set me right in the comments below.

OP staff is scheduled to issue a final report with recommendations by the end of 2014. On January 15, 2015, at 6:30pm, the DC Zoning Commission will have a public hearing at its offices at Judiciary Square (441 4th Street NW). Then the Zoning Commission will take a first vote on the matter. After that, there will be another comment period, followed by a second and final vote, also by the Zoning Commission. This second vote could take place as early as March 2015.

The proposal will be subject to review by the National Capital Planning Commission and the US Congress. The DC City Council will not vote on this matter.

At least three ANC Commissioners attended the September 27 meeting, including ANC Chairs Kent Boese (ANC1A Commissioner for district 08) and James Turner (ANC1B Commissioner for district 09). At least three candidates in contested elections for ANC1B seats also attended.

The meeting took place at the Carlos Rosario International Public Charter School (1100 Harvard Street).

Public documents about this proposal -- including official memos about the proposal, videos of hearings about the proposal, and transcripts of the hearings -- are available by going to DC's Interactive Zoning Information System and entering case number 14-11 in the search bar. The number must be entered with the dash in the middle to yield the documents for this case. 

No Parking for 132 Microunits at 90-91 Blagden Alley: "This Is Wishful Thinking"

CORRECTION: When first published, this article did not specify the date of the meeting. Apologies.

On September 24, committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 2F/Logan Circle told developer SB-Urban, supported by parking consultants Wells & Associates, that it could not endorse its plan for absolutely no parking or loading area for its proposed 132-microunit residential building at 90-91 Blagden Alley NW. The parking issue was tabled until the next scheduled meeting of ANC2F's Community Development Committee (CDC) in late October.

Proposed view from across M Street, from BZA files

The developers sought ANC endorsement for a handful of zoning variances and special exceptions (see pages 4 and 6, respectively, of document here for definitions) that it wants from DC's Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA). The cold comfort for the developers was that the CDC approved all of the requests apart from the parking. For example, the CDC did not object to the proposed roof structures (one is a five-foot-tall elevator overrun, set back 10 feet from the edge of the building), or the lot occupancy (the proposed footprint of the building will take up 89% of the property, whereas zoning allows 75%).

According to information on PropertyQuest, 90-91 Blagden Alley is zoned category C-2-A. Under current zoning regulations, there must be at least one parking space for each two dwelling units, or 66 spaces.

The argument for no parking spaces

SB-Urban's argument was that they could only fit eight parking spaces on the property, and to do so would require putting a ramp in a historic building. The presenters said their target demographic was car-free young professionals. There is a metro stop, a Circulator bus route, several conventional bus routes, 19 car share spaces, and two bike share stations, all within a quarter-mile of the building.

SB-Urban's representative also said they would offer a series of amenities to encourage bike use, including 42 spaces of bike parking, a "real time transportation board" (which would show, among other things, availability at nearby bikeshare stations), a maintenance space for bikes in the basement, a complimentary Capital Bikeshare membership for new arrivals, and ten helmets on hand for residents to borrow.

SB-Urban presented a very similar package of bike-friendly amenities to ANC 2B/Dupont Circle in March when they convinced the ANC to endorse a car-free micro-apartment concept for the Patterson Mansion (15 Dupont Circle) -- see SALM blog post of March 18.

The push back

The committee raised many objections. A committee member said expecting every inhabitant of 132 units to be car-free was unrealistic. Even a small number of tenants with cars would put an additional burden on an area with insufficient parking.

"Even if only 10 percent have cars, that's another 13 cars," said committee member Joel Heisey.

"There's got to be some other way than zero," Heisey said.

"We can't guarantee that zero percent of the people will have cars," a presenter said.

CDC Committee Chair Walt Cain (Commissioner for district 02) brought up "the loading question". There is no loading dock in the proposal, and no place for delivery trucks to park legally.

Presenters said all of the units would be furnished, so tenants would not arrive with truckloads of furniture to be unloaded.

Committee members and residents pointed out that the type of people who live in micro-units are also likely to shop on-line, meaning UPS and Fedex trucks visiting frequently, as well as deliveries of food from services like Peapod. One of the presenters said tenants wouldn't order food online because there was a newish Giant grocery store nearby. Members of the audience begged to differ.

"There's not even a place for a trash truck," a committee member said.

"Where is the trash going to be?" another committee member asked.

"On the sidewalk," the presenters replied.

There was an audible gasp from some members of the audience at this assertion. The discussion continued over the practical upshot of garbage from 132 units, however small, being picked up curbside on M Street. The presenters said garbage could be taken out to the curb and away in five minutes. Listeners were skeptical.

"This is wishful thinking," one resident said of the proposal.

The consensus seemed to be that there needed to be some parking for deliveries and loading, at the very least. The alternative, Commissioner Cain said, was an outright rejection of the request by the committee.

The presenters agreed to return with a revised proposal at the next CDC meeting, scheduled for October 29, 7pm, at the Washington Plaza Hotel (10 Thomas Circle). Normally, if the CDC endorses a proposal, it is considered by the full ANC at its next meeting, which in this case would be on the evening of November 5.

SB-Urban has a BZA hearing scheduled for the morning of November 5, i.e., before the ANC meeting. So the presenters asked if the ANC could agree at its October meeting to take the extraordinary step in this case of granting the CDC power to endorse a zoning request without full ANC consideration. Cain said he would try to work some arrangement out with the full ANC. 

The vote to endorse zoning relief requests except the special exception for parking passed the committee unanimously.

Ninety and 91 Blagden Alley are actually two unconnected properties, one of them (90) fronting on M Street, the other facing the Washington Convention Center across 9th Street. The proposal joins them by an elevated pedestrian bridge over Blagden Alley. They are being considered by the BZA as a single property.

This proposal was previously heard by the CDC in March when SB-Urban sought endorsement for an application to DC's Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) -- see coverage by the blogs Urban Turf and District Source. It received an unfavorable review from HPRB staff in July before receiving approval by a 4-3 vote by the full Board, according to District Source.

The documents pertaining to the application for zoning relief, including detailed plans and drawings of the project plus a 47-page transportation study, can be viewed by going to the BZA's Interactive Zoning Information System and entering case number 18852 in the search bar.

Cheater's Guide to Dream City -- Part 18 (City on Trial)

This is the eighteenth installment of a series (see the first installment here) summarizing the 1994 book Dream City: Race, Power, and the Decline of Washington, D.C.by Harry Jaffe and Tom Sherwood. This book has recently been republished as an ebook and a paper book. HBO has plans to use material from the book to make a movie about the life of Marion Barry.

Chapter 15: City on Trial (three of three)

After the dramatic premiere of the videotape showing Marion Barry smoking crack at the Vista Hotel, the prosecution laid on ten witnesses who testified that they used drugs with Barry, along with dealers and non-drug-taking witnesses.

Barry's attorney "Ken Mundy put on a perfunctory defense that lasted only a few days" (Kindle location 5113).

"Based purely on the facts, Barry's defense looked weak mesured against the government's overwhelming evidence.... It was clear that he went to great lengths to obtain the drugs and conspired to buy it.... It was also quite plain that he'd lied about his drug use.... Witness after witness had described using narcotics with the mayor, and the government introduced the mayor's own phone logs that proved that he made calls to many of the people who testified. If the jurors believe only half of the evidence, there was enough to convict Barry on most of the counts, including the felonies" (l. 5120).

"But there was much more than simple evidence at work in this case. The larger issues of race and politics and government power loomed over the courtroom and permeated every piece of evidence. When the testimony was complete, power shifted to the jury" (l. 5121).

"The case of U.S. v. Barry went to the jury on August 2, 1990" (l. 5139).

"But from the first hours of deliberation, the twelve jurors were deadlocked -- some frozen in their divergent views as were the people of Washington, D.C. There were two separate realities: One accepted and trusted the American system of justice; the other believed in a conspiracy against blacks. Across that chasm, consensus would be hard to reach" (l. 5148).

"In the end, after eight days of frustrating debate, the jurors cut a deal. On eleven of the fourteen counts, including three felony charges, they were hopelessly deadlocked by scores of 7-5 and 6-6. They didn't vote on the conspiracy count. But on two counts they decided to strike a balance." (l. 5167).

"The outcome had more to do with horse-trading than with weighing the evidence. The antigovernment, pro-Barry bloc denied the prosecution its felonies and gained acquittal on one misdemeanor. The other jurors saved face and some integrity by hitting Barry with one misdemeanor. It was a political rather than a judicial verdict" (l. 5168).

"The jurors sent a note to Judge Jackson at 4:25 p.m., August 10, a Friday" (l. 5169). The jury foreman said the jury had found Barry not guilty of one misdemeanor count, and guilty of one misdemeanor count. The judge send the jurors back to try again. A short while later, the foreman sent a note saying the jury was hopelessly deadlocked.

"Eight minutes later [Judge Thomas Penfield] Jackson called the jurors back and declared a mistrial" (l. 5177).

"Marion Barry wept.... He thought there was little likelihood of a jail sentence. He had taken on the government and won. His supporters in the room cried and grabbed him. He hugged Mundy and left the courtroom amid a throng of wellwishers" (l. 5178).

"Word already had spread outside.... The mayor walked from the side door around to the front in a victory march that thrilled his waiting fans but apparently infuriated Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson. In front of the courthouse, the crowd erupted in a chant of 'Ba-rry, Ba-rry, Ba-rry!' The mayor soaked it in for a few minutes and headed off into the late summer evening" (l. 5184).

"When [US Assistant Attorney General and lead prosecutor] Jay Stephens tried to hold a press conference on the steps, the raucous crowd booed and shouted him down. Horns of passing motorists honked along Pennsylvania Avenue. Not since the Washington Redskins won the Super Bowl had the town seen such spontaneous celebration" (l. 5186).

Cheater's Guide to Dream City continues next week

Further installments will appear on successive Fridays. All posts will be cross-posted on the ad-hoc "Cheater's Guide to Dream City" blog.

Full disclosure: I have a commercial relationship with Amazon. I will receive a very small portion of the money people spend after clicking on an Amazon link on this site.

This is a great book and well worth reading in its entirety.

2131 N Street: ANC2B Asks for Delay, but Historic Preservation Goes Ahead with Approval

At its regular monthly meeting on September 10, Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 2B/Dupont Circle voted to ask for a delay in the consideration of the case of a two-story rear addition at 2131 N Street NW. But DC's Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) went ahead and gave it tentative approval anyway on September 18.

(Google Street View)

Like most properties in Dupont Circle, 2131 N Street is in a historic district -- in this case, Dupont Circle Historic District. Significant changes to the exterior of the building require the approval of HPRB.

The owners and their representatives from architecture firm Soe Lin & Associates appeared before ANC2B's Zoning, Preservation and Development (ZPD) Committee on September 3. They showed drawings and described the proposed addition, which will extend the house a further 10 feet, 9 inches, to the rear. The highest point of the building will be 4 feet, 3 inches above the current height. However, the added height will be completely in the rear of the building and will not be visible from N Street.

The addition would be built in an area which currently has a walk-out deck. Behind the deck, there is a parking space. A trellis would also be added over the parking space.

Density, whether up or behind, is always an issue in this area.

"Do we want more rear additions?" a committee member asked.

The committee also asked if the neighbors had been consulted. The applicant said they had tried to contact one neighbor, but the neighbor worked for the World Bank and was out of town for a long period.

One member of the committee suggested support for the project if the applicant provided evidence that the neighbors were contacted.

Commissioner Mike Silverstein (district 06) was concerned that there were no pictures provided of the view down the alley. 2131 N Street is in Silverstein's ANC district.

In the end, the ZPD Committee voted to table a decision until October, and ask the applicant to come back both with evidence of consultations with the neighbors and with more pictures showing what the project might look like when completed.

This decision was ratified by the full ANC, as mentioned above. All six Commissioners present at the full ANC meeting voted in favor of the motion.

The letter sent by ANC2B to HPRB, dated September 16, can see seen here. It asks for "additional time for neighborhood input".

On September 18, HPRB staff recommended approval to the project -- see document here. HPRB staff found the "overall concept" of the renovation consistent with historical preservation but suggested the architect revise some of the details, including those involving materials and windows.

The project will be back before the ZPD Committee anyway. Assuming that the HPRB management signs off on the staff's recommendation, the next step will be for the homeowners to get a zoning variance for lot occupancy from DC's Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA). According to DC Zoning code, the footprint of this building should cover no more than 60 percent of the lot. With the new addition, it will cover nearly 70 percent.

ANC input is solicited for zoning variances. This will give the ANC another chance to see if there was any consultation with the neighbors and address other concerns.

The zoning variance may be considered at the ZPD Committee's next meeting on Wednesday, October 1, at 7pm, at the Dupont Circle Resource Center (9 Dupont Circle). Any decision made would then be considered by the full ANC, scheduled to meet at 7pm, October 8, at the Brookings Institution (1775 Massachusetts Avenue).

A BZA hearing on 2131 N Street is on the BZA calendar for October 28.

Plans, including architectural drawings of the proposed addition, submitted by the owners in support of their request for a zoning area variance can be seen by going to the BZA's Interactive Zoning Information System and entering case number 18844 in the search bar.

Interview with Ellen Nedrow Sullivan, Candidate for ANC1B District 02

This is a written interview with Ellen Nedrow Sullivan. Sullivan is a candidate for Commissioner in district 02 of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 1B/U Street.

Sullivan is running against Jennie Nevin. An interview with Nevin appeared here yesterday.

District 02 contains some of the fastest-developing territory in the U Street NW corridor. It extends from 12th Street in the west to 8th Street in the east. The southern border is S Street. The northern border is a jagged line, mostly defined by Florida Avenue. See bottom center of the map at right.

Don't know your ANC district? There are two search tools: one by the DC government, the other by Code for DC.

-- Tell a little about your online presence. What will voters find there? What other ways can potential voters find out about you?

Voters can find me online at my Facebook page, Ellen Nedrow Sullivan for ANC 1B02. There I’ll be posting about issues that matter to our community, hearing directly from neighbors, and giving campaign updates. I really enjoy getting out and talking with people so I’ll be knocking on doors and hosting a meet and greet on Oct. 19th. When I collected signatures to get on the ballot, it was a family affair with my husband, our toddler, and our dog joining me (our cat declined) so I hope to do that again though with cooler weather this time.

-- At the last ANC meeting, Commissioners agreed that your district is the one generating the most work -- liquor licenses, historic preservation requests, zoning. How will you balance your volunteer responsibilities as a Commissioner with your day job?

If I am elected as the Commissioner for ANC 1B02, it will be my day job. I will start a long planned break from working in the Senate at the beginning of January and that flexibility will allow me to work for our neighborhood during business hours and not just when I can fit it in.

I have also been an active member of our ANC’s ABC committee for two years and as a homeowner, I have worked with both the historic preservation and zoning offices. I know that these issues areas are time intensive and need someone who can attend the daytime meetings where the decisions are being made.

-- Your district has a lot of retail in it, and parking is always a problem. What, if anything, can ANCs do to help businesses get the local parking that they need?

I live on 9th right off of U St. NW so I see the fight for parking every day with businesses and residents both wanting more. While we work on big solutions like zoning regulations for parking requirements in new developments, resident only parking and a visitor pass system, and improving our mass transit system we also need to focus on how to make improvements now. Small things affect someone’s decision whether to drive or not- is the bus going to be late, is the metro escalator out, is the sidewalk so broken that using a wheelchair, granny cart, or stroller is impossible? If we work on these issues and improve street lighting and crosswalk safety while adding bike racks then we can decrease the number of cars inching along looking for a parking space.

 -- There is push back now against density in residential area, particularly in favor of limiting “pop ups”? What do you think about these proposed new regulations? How is it possible to have more affordable housing if it is so difficult to add to the housing stock?

Density, pop-ups, and affordable housing are three separate issues to me. DC is not going to solve the need for affordable housing through pop-ups; it will take a partnership between our government and developers to build mixed income housing. Pop-ups, like all matters of zoning, should be clearly regulated and so I think reviewing the current regulations and exploring the need for new ones are the right first steps. Increased density has positive and negative impacts and they deserve their own debate. As a founding co-chair of the Westminster Neighborhood Association’s Business Improvement Group (WNA BIG), I have worked for two years with neighbors, developers, and business owners to find the right balance and type of density in our part of the neighborhood. We surveyed our neighborhood association members and brought their opinions directly to the ANC meetings and the developers pushing for amenities like a grocery store that will benefit all of us for years to come.

-- Several liquor licensees in your district are the targets of chronic noise complaints from the neighbors. How can the ANC and the district government more adequately address these complaints?

I have been an active member of the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Committee for our ANC for two years during which every liquor license in our ANC came up for renewal so I’m familiar with these issues. We discuss ways to prevent noise issues with every establishment that comes before the committee and most are very willing to work with us because they don’t want complaints from neighbors. So they close windows, don’t dump bottles in the middle of the night, have their security keep things more orderly as people wait in line, close outdoor areas a little earlier, etc. and the noise levels improve. I feel the committee has been successful in brokering these types of compromises especially with new applicants so I think things are improving and will continue to do so.

The cases like the ones I think you are referencing are normally about bigger problems than just noise. These are the establishments that require the neighbors, the ANC, the Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration (ABRA), and in very unfortunate cases the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) to work together to build a case and either make the punishment harsh enough and frequent enough to change the behavior of the owners or as a last resort to take away their license. With this type of case it is important to have an ANC representative that can attend all of the ABRA hearings and meetings that take place during business hours and keep the pressure on ABRA.

-- What is your position on the proposed Reeves Center land swap? If the deal goes through, what would be the best use of the current site of the Reeves Center?

I grew up playing soccer and have been playing in a DC area league since 2006, my dad played, my brother played, and we have already started our son in a neighborhood toddler soccer group. It is a great sport. But this is a major financial decision for the city and it needs careful consideration and not just an emotional response. I would need to see all of the details before making a decision.

If the deal were to go through, I would like to see a development that combined daytime use such as offices and retail with residential so that we would see benefits from it 24 hours a day. To me, the Reeves Center was built as a symbol of promise and any new development on that corner should aim to do the same.

 -- Why vote for you, and not the other person?

Seventeen years ago I came to Washington, fell in love with the city and politics, and chose to make this my home. My husband and I moved to Shaw five years ago and we are raising our son in a home and community we love.

Community matters to me. It is why I have worked in the US Senate for thirteen years for Senators who fight to improve healthcare, transportation, and education. It is why I have enjoyed serving on the ABC Committee for our ANC. It is why I founded and co-chair the Westminster Neighborhood Association’s Business Improvement Group, working directly with business owners and developers as our neighborhood changes. We all have a responsibility to be involved and work together because that is how our community will flourish. I hope to be given the chance to put my experience and commitment to our community to work as your representative on our ANC.

I have been impressed with Jennie Nevins’ involvement with the ANC and with her quickness in becoming involved after moving to DC. I look forward to getting to know her as we both campaign and to working with her in the future.


End of interview

ANC1B, in addition to U Street, includes all or part of the following neighborhoods: Columbia Heights, LeDroit Park, Pleasant Plains, Shaw, University Heights, and lower Georgia Avenue.

The election will take place on Tuesday, November 4. Thanks to all candidates for responding to my questions.

200 Block of N Street: Discord over Parking

Two recent incidents along the 200 block of N Street NW illustrates how the fight for limited on-street parking space sets neighbor against neighbor.

"It's a bit of a sad situation for the 200 block of N Street," said Commissioner Rachelle Nigro (district 04), referring to the first of the two incidents described below.

(From the Facebook site of Commissioner Rachelle Nigro)

At the last meeting of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 6E/Shaw, a request for a dedicated on-street handicapped parking space for the resident of a single-family house at 216 N Street was discussed. The resident at 216 N Street apparently applied to the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) for a designated handicapped parking space in front of her home. The space was granted. There was "negative feedback" from some neighbors. But it is too late to un-grant the handicapped parking space.

DDOT is supposed to notify ANCs of requests of this type. DDOT says it did so, specifically, that they mailed a letter on June 4. But, by the September 1 meeting, the ANC had never received any communication, paper or electronic, about the application for a handicapped parking space. A Commissioner said this was the second time communication concerning handicapped parking spaces did not reach the ANC.

ANC6E Chair Alexander Padro (Commissioner for district 01) expressed exasperation at DDOT's apparent inability to mail a letter so that it arrives at its intended destination.

"We get notices from the District government about proposed actions every day," he said.

Another Commissioner was skeptical about the letter's existence.

"Let us read the proof," said Commissioner Marge Maceda (district 05). "We have never received this."

The ANC passed a motion to send a letter to DDOT telling them their letters do not arrive at their intended destination.

ANC6E videos its meetings in their entirety and post them on its YouTube channel in 30-minute segments, but the section of the meeting which contained the discussion of this topic was missing from the channel at the time of this writing.

There was also some discussion at the meeting because the property was apparently listed as for sale on the real estate web site Zillow. However, on the same day as the ANC meeting, the listing was removed from Zillow, although the attendees of the meeting apparently didn't know it.

The asking price for the property was $1.3 million.

The second parking dispute occurred in August, according to information from the Facebook site of Commissioner Nigro. On August 7 and 8, there was a two-day teacher development event at nearby Dunbar High School (101 N Street). Apparently someone at DC public schools issued several official-looking "parking permits" (see above) in the name of the Office of the Deputy Chancellor Institute of DC Public Schools. The permits claimed it allowed the bearer to park in "the two-hour restricted zone" (i.e., on-street parking for residents) while the development event took place.

As Commissioner Nigro pointed out in a Facebook comment, DC public schools are not authorized to issue on-street parking permits, and there apparently was some confusion about who exacting authorized and produced the "permits".

Nigro also wrote on Facebook that she had asked for an explanation from various parts of the DC government about the incident, but as of this writing had not posted any response.

Interview with Jennie Nevin, Candidate for ANC1B District 02

This is a written interview with Jennie Nevin. Nevin is a candidate for Commissioner in district 02 of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 1B/U Street.

Nevin is running against Ellen Nedrow Sullivan. Read an interview with Sullivan here.

District 02 contains some of the fastest-developing territory in the U Street NW corridor. It extends from 12th Street in the west to 8th Street in the east. The southern border is S Street. The northern border is a jagged line, mostly defined by Florida Avenue. See bottom center of the map at right.

Don't know your ANC district? There are two search tools: one by the DC government, the other by Code for DC.

-- Tell a little about your online presence. What will voters find there? What other ways can potential voters find out about you?

You can find my website for my campaign at www.jennienevin.com. There, I’ve put up a brief biography as well as a description of my thoughts on several of the major responsibilities of the ANC Commissioners. My hope is that by reading my commentary and my personal story, voters can get a sense for what really matters to me and how I will approach the issues they care about. My website contains my email address—jennieANC1B02@gmail.com--which voters are welcome to use to contact me to find out more.

-- At the last ANC meeting, Commissioners agreed that your district is the one generating the most work -- liquor licenses, historic preservation requests, zoning. How will you balance your volunteer responsibilities as a Commissioner with your day job?

This is definitely true; ANC1B 02 is a busy place! I have thought about this issue long and hard, and I think the key is to concentrate and delegate. By concentrate, I mean picking certain issues where I will be able to devote significant time and effort, such as a development proposal (e.g. the Grimke School) or a certain policy topic (e.g. the zoning rewrite). By delegate I mean two things. One is recognizing the role that other officials—such as the Councilmember for Ward 1—can play in handling my community’s concerns and relying on their expertise and staff and influence to advance my constituents’ needs. The second way I will delegate is by involving constituents in helping me keep abreast of issues that matter to the community. I will rely on active and involved citizens of ANC1B, many of whom I already know, to take a leadership role in some of the issues that matter most, and I will work with them to accomplish the community’s goals.

-- Your district has a lot of retail in it, and parking is always a problem. What, if anything, can ANCs do to help businesses get the local parking that they need?

Concern about being “underparked” is very real for many businesses in this district. Short of insisting that the zoning ordinance contain reasonable parking requirements for new developments in the area, a Commissioner can be helpful to businesses by assisting with more creative parking solutions. For example, U Street Music Hall has partnered with Parking Panda to offer spaces that customers can reserve before shows so that they have a spot when they arrive to park. As a Commissioner, I would work with businesses to pursue these kinds of solutions to make the most of existing space in the area.

-- There is push back now against density in residential area, particularly in favor of limiting “pop ups”? What do you think about these proposed new regulations? How is it possible to have more affordable housing if it is so difficult to add to the housing stock?

I am not in favor of limiting pop ups. It is impossible to deny that the District is in the throes of an affordability crisis, with thousands of residents unable to afford a place to live, and thousands more spending far too much of their income on housing. Often the influx of new “Class A” residential units in large apartment buildings is cited as a possible solution to affordability. But this is not a sufficient solution; after all, those buildings are a reality because their developers know they can turn a profit by charging high rents. To drive down housing costs, the answer is ultimately about increasing supply of all kinds, and there are only so many ways to do that in a city where heights are limited. As a result, I am in favor of all creative building types, from tiny houses to English basements to pop-ups.

My single member district includes what is commonly referred to as one of the most dramatic pop ups in the City and a symbol for all that is “evil” about unrestricted popup development. But at the end of the day, what we are talking about isn’t “evil”, it’s just “ugly.” I believe that if we are going to build a DC that has room for all of us, we must be prepared for change and be accepting of a different skyline. I’d like to borrow from an Atlantic Cities article on this topic: “By the Office of Planning's own accounting, demand will greatly outstrip supply in D.C. if the status quo is maintained. The city needs to stop talking about whether pop-up condo conversions are "ugly"—full stop. That…debate over aesthetics implies mutual interest. But really, only one side wins when the rules are made to stop development to protect a[n existing] homeowner.”

-- Several liquor licensees in your district are the targets of chronic noise complaints from the neighbors. How can the ANC and the district government more adequately address these complaints?

Noisy bars and residential communities make naturally difficult neighbors. Because their needs are often in direct conflict, I believe that the best approach to achieving peaceful coexistence is one grounded in compromise, mainly through negotiating settlement agreements. These agreements can lock establishments in to terms that are realistic for both parties, particularly regarding operating hours, outdoor activity and vermin control. Beyond these specific agreements, the issue becomes about enforcing the laws that govern noise in the District. As an ANC commissioner, it is important to be willing to express the concerns of citizens to the agencies that are responsible for enforcing the law and responding to noise complaints. I promise to be an advocate for my neighbors in engaging District government when it is required to enforce controls on noise.

-- What is your position on the proposed Reeves Center land swap? If the deal goes through, what would be the best use of the current site of the Reeves Center?

My views on the Reeve’s Center swap have evolved significantly over the course of the debate. Along with many residents of our neighborhood, I initially reacted to the proposal with deep skepticism. The Reeves Center site is clearly one of the City’s crown jewels, and the prospect of relinquishing control of that asset without a solid understanding of what would replace it—or whether it will be valued appropriately—is concerning.

Overall, however, I do agree with many of the assumptions underlying the deal. The Reeves Center was originally constructed in its current location to serve as a catalyst for economic development in a troubled area. It has clearly served its purpose, and the prospect of relocating the center to a place where its 800 employees might help spur similar development is compelling. While our businesses will need to adapt to a shift in demand from new uses at the site, I believe that moving this asset to Anacostia to complement existing government buildings would benefit our City as a whole. Similarly, I believe that linking the Southwest Waterfront with the existing Nationals Stadium area would support beneficial development at Buzzard Point, and while the loss of potential housing in that area is concerning, existing conditions do not indicate that there is a real possibility of residential development there without this kind of sea change.

Ultimately, I think the deal comes down to two questions: is the District getting a “good value” for the land, and what is the planned use of the 14th and U property. Fortunately, the District has invested a substantial sum in an independent evaluation of the former point, which will hopefully clear up competing claims about the true costs of the deal (including the opportunity cost of not acting). I remain concerned about the valuations of the Reeves Center, but I understand that while a higher price might come from auctioning the property, there are elements of the swap that only work as part of this larger deal, and I know from my own work that an alignment of interests that make a deal of this scale possible are hard to come by and valuable for that reason. Unfortunately, to my knowledge the report commissioned to investigate the costs of the deal has not yet been released. Pending that, and pending a more solid commitment from the developer and the City to lock-in an appropriate, community-supported use for the 14th and U site, I am not in support of the deal. My opinions, however, may change as these two points come into greater focus.

I would like to see the 14th and U site be a residential property with some ground floor retail but also some significant space dedicated to daytime uses and public benefit (perhaps a small start-up incubator or a one-stop career center); I am fully supportive of requiring affordable housing units in the building to the greatest extent possible.

-- Why vote for you, and not the other person?

I have a proven track record of a multi-year voluntary commitment to serve the ANC, which sets me apart from other candidates. Far too many people who run for this office don't understand the hard work, long nights, and difficult decisions for which they are signing up. I know exactly what this commitment means, and I have thought long and hard about making it. I'm in this for the right reasons, and I have the right skill set for the job. I have worked in local government for my whole career, and I have a base level of knowledge about the details of issues like development, liquor, stormwater, transportation, etc. that will help me hit the ground running as a Commissioner. My combination of proven local government experience and proven commitment to the ANC set me apart, and I believe I am the strongest choice for ANC1B 02.

End of interview

ANC1B, in addition to U Street, includes all or part of the following neighborhoods: Columbia Heights, LeDroit Park, Pleasant Plains, Shaw, University Heights, and lower Georgia Avenue.

The election will take place on Tuesday, November 4. Thanks to all candidates for responding to my questions.

2031 11th Street: One of the Oldest Houses in the Neighborhood Gets a Renovation

The owner of 2031 11th Street NW says parts of his home date from 1857, although on-line information says the house was built in 1890. In support of the 1857 claim, the homeowner showed the Design Review Committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 1B/U Street a copy of a yellowing section of a 19th-century map. The maps shows the area between 7th and 16th Streets, and R Street and Florida Avenue.

2031 11th Street last week

A lonely black dot sits in a sea of undeveloped grid squares. This, the homeowner said, is his home.

This house is wood-framed. The homeowner was not able to find another wood-framed house of this age in the neighborhood.

The homeowner said he had bought the house in 2010. It was in "catastrophic condition", he said. Some of the 150-year-old wood was "completely rotted out". He has spent time since improving the interior of the house.

The homeowner now wants to renovate the facade and is starting the slog through the historical preservation process to get the necessary permissions. The house is located within the U Street Historic District, so the homeowner will first need to get approval from DC's Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB). He came before the Design Review committee on September 15th to get ANC endorsement of the general idea for the renovation, which he needs before he goes to HPRB.

The homeowner said he has already been in discussion with HPRB. He would like to replace the current facade (see photo) and restore the wood frame. Perhaps the new facade might be stucco. The homeowner thought maintaining the bay window might be a good idea.

"I'd like a porch," he said.

A member of the Design Review Committee said that a porch was not appropriate for the house and he would not support it. Further, he said, HPRB would not support it.

The homeowner said he had talked to a neighbor in an abutting row house. The neighbor has no objections.

"He's a very easy-to-get-along-with guy," the homeowner said.

The Design Review Committee voted unanimously (one abstention) to support most of the concept of the renovation, including the bay window, but not the porch.

The homeowner a few days later said he had been in touch with HPRB. The person he talked to there said there would be no objection to a porch.

The renovation of 2031 11th Street will probably be considered by the full ANC at its next meeting, scheduled for Thursday, October 2, at the Reeves Center (14th and U Street NW).

According to on-line information, 2031 11th Street was sold in December 2010 for $560,000.

CORRECTED: DC Liquor Licensing Chief on Proposed New Legislation, Rules

CORRECTED (1:30pm): I incorrectly stated that all of the changes below would be contained in the new legislation to be considered by the City Council. In fact, some of the changes will be part of the legislation, and other changes will be part of a separate set of ABRA rule changes. The article underwent some rewriting as a result. Thanks to Jessie Cornelius of ABRA for the information, and apologies for any inconvenience caused.

Fred Moosally, Director of DC's Alcohol Beverage Regulation Administration (ABRA), spoke on September 17 about two proposed new tweaks to DC's alcoholic beverage control regime. He told a meeting of the liquor-licensing affairs committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 2F/Logan Circle that a City Council hearing on the a bill is scheduled for October 16 at 10am. The new legislation would amend the Omnibus Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Amendment Act of 2012.

Moosally (standing) speaks at the meeting

This new legislation is called "The Omnibus Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Amendment Act of 2014" and is Bill 20-902.

The second legislative item are new proposed rules, which are separate and require a 30-day public comment period. There will also be a separate public hearing on the regulations.

"The last draft I saw is a lengthy document," Moosally said, referring to new proposed rules.

Moosally said one of the aims of the proposed change to the 2012 law was to clarify of the rights of abutting property owners to liquor licensees. Some background: Under the 2012 bill, Section 25-609 of the District of Columbia Official Code was changed. This section concerned procedures when groups protest the issuance or amendment of liquor licenses. It changed the existing procedure so ABRA would automatically dismiss the liquor-license protests "groups of five or more" (usually neighbors of the establishment) if the local ANC reaches an agreement with the licensee -- see, for example, the cases reported in SALM blog posts of June 19, 2014, and November 18, 2013.

However, the 2012 bill was "silent", Moosally said, on the rights of abutting property owners, that is, property owners who share a property line with a liquor licensee. The new law would make explicit that, unlike "groups of five", a protest by an abutting property owner would not be automatically dismissed in the event of a licensee agreement with an ANC.

Another issue to be addressed in Bill 20-902 concerns what happens to liquor-licensing "settlement agreements" when an establishment moves. Currently, Moosally said, settlement agreements run with the liquor license. However, if an establishment moves, the old settlement agreement may be inappropriate. An example given at the meeting was if an existing settlement agreement included language about the use of a second floor of a building, and then a licensee moved to a new location with only one floor.

Another change, Moosally said, would concern "what happens when a licensee doesn't show up for a hearing". This would be addressed in the rule change. During the liquor license protest process, there are many hearings, held during daytime working hours. If a licensee shows up for a hearing but a protesting group doesn't, often the protest is permanently dismissed. On the other hand, if a protesting group shows up but a liquor licensee doesn't, the hearing is often rescheduled. Proposed amendments could change the law rules so that the two parties are on a more equal footing in this respect.

Under the projected change, "the settlement agreement does not move to a new location," Moosally said.

"Any time you're moving to a new location, you have to be placarded," Moosally  said, meaning, there must be a 60-day period when the establishment displays a large placard, inviting public comment, in a highly visible space at its existing or possible future place of business.

Yet another issue is liquor license "safekeeping". Unused liquor licenses sometimes stay in a state of safekeeping for years. The new law rule would make it easier for ABRA to revoke long-unused liquor licenses.

Another proposed change would amend certain details involving noise violations. As it stands now, an establishment with a liquor-license can only be cited once every 30 days for noise violations. The change would mean liquor licensees could be cited more frequently.

Noise from liquor licensees was the subject of much discussion at the meeting. The inter-agency noise task force, which started in March and includes members of ABRA, the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA), and the police, is still in operation, Moosally said. It is operating from 10pm to 3am on Fridays, Saturdays, and "some Sundays". During those hours only, the public can contact the task force with noise complaints at 202-329-6347.

Neighborhood residents told Moosally the process to force liquor licensees to obey noise regulation was still too slow and cumbersome. Neighbors with complaints often had to take multiple days off work over the period of more than a year, at the end of which the offending establishment might have to pay a $250 fine.

The result, one local resident said, was that one habitual noise violator in a neighborhood would turn a community against all restaurants. Any new establishment, no matter how well intentioned, would find itself fighting its neighbors every step of the way, since the neighbors felt that, once an establishment received a license, the establishment could do as it pleased.

"We'd like to see an ABRA starting violation at $1000," the resident said.

ANC2F Commissioners John Fanning (district 04) and Jim Lamare (05) were at the meeting, as well candidates for ANC2F seats in the November election. Fanning is the chair of ANC2F's liquor-licensing affairs committee.

The next scheduled meeting of the full ANC is on Wednesday, October 1, at 7pm, at the Washington Plaza Hotel (10 Thomas Circle).

Interview with Danielle Pierce, Candidate for ANC2F District 06

This is a written interview with Danielle Pierce, who is running for Commissioner of district 06 in Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 2F/Logan Circle. It is the only race in ANC2F that will have two candidates on the ballot -- see SALM blog post of August 11.

(From ANC2F's website)

Pierce's opponent in the race is Charlie Bengel. An interview with Bengel appeared yesterday.

District 06 is the easternmost district in ANC2F. It included Blagden Alley and Naylor Court. It extends through Shaw and down to Mount Vernon Square. The Washington Convention Center is in this district. It is the green box on the right of the map at right.

Don't know your ANC district? There are two search tools: one by the DC government, the other by Code for DC.

-- Where can voters go to learn more about you?

There is a lot of information about me here. But, as a quick summary, I have been a part of the Ward 2 community for my entire adult life. I graduated from the George Washington University and GW Law, and I have worked in this neighborhood for the past 20 years. I became a homeowner in 2F06 10 years ago, and I have since spent a lot of time working to help the community. I love my neighborhood. It gives me great pride to have played a part in the incredible improvements in the area. I would love to continue this work as the ANC2F 06 Commissioner. As Commissioner, not only will I work to ensure that the revitalization continues in a sustainable fashion, but I will work to instill more of a sense of community here. I plan to hold regular single member district meetings to ensure that everyone has a voice, and I would be happy to come to condo board and other neighborhood meetings to update and seek input from those who may not have the time to attend the ANC meetings. If you have any questions, please email me at daniellewpierce@gmail.com.

-- What's your position on recent attempts by the DC government to limit conversions of single-family homes into multi-unit buildings?

I believe this issue needs to be examined on a case-by-case basis. Each block in our neighborhood has a different character. Some blocks are now filled with mostly multi-floored, multi-unit buildings with one or two very large houses in the middle. Some of these are vacant and in desperate need of renovation. In those instances, it wouldn't make any sense to require that these houses be kept as five or six bedroom single-family homes. But there are other instances in which a block may be filled with all smaller single-family homes and the conversion of one of these homes to a multi-unit building would affect the character of the block dramatically. In these instances, it may be wise to require that the building remains a single-family home.

Thus, although it is sometimes nice to have broad rules to shortcut decision-making processes, I don't believe that this is an instance where such broad-brushed rulings would be appropriate.

-- In June, Ward 2 City Councilmember Jack Evans went before ANC 2F and suggested a liquor license moratorium might be appropriate for the area. What do you think about Evans’ suggestion and about liquor license moratoriums in general?

I am not aware of the context of Councilmember Evans’ suggestion, but I am generally opposed to liquor license moratoriums.

I have seen how they can completely stunt the growth of a neighborhood. For example, a few years back, Cleveland Park was seemingly on the verge of a renaissance with a bunch of new restaurants drawing people to the area. But many of the storefronts remained underutilized because of the liquor license moratorium, leaving many vacant properties between the attractions. I think that these manufactured holes in the commercial strips were a significant cause of the loss of momentum, and now several of the prized restaurants - such as Palena and Dino - have had to close or relocate to other, more welcoming, areas.

ANC2F has some amazing commercial strips that are thriving. As explained in a City Paper article earlier this year, "The more restaurants there are within close proximity, the more the neighborhood becomes a destination where diners quickly fill streets and crowd bar stools." I understand that there are some types of restaurants and bars that we may not want to proliferate (and a few local ones that we may want to go away), but I believe that our single member district is actually attracting the exact type of restaurant that will make our neighborhood better.

Only a few years ago, there was very little in the immediate neighborhood aside from the treasure of El Rinconcito. Then Tom Power took the leap and opened one of the best restaurants in the city here, Corduroy. Then RJ Cooper followed suit with Rogue 24. These men, helped by the Brown brothers down the street (Passenger, Columbia Room, Hogo, Mockingbird Hill, Eat the Rich, Southern Efficiency) put this neighborhood on the dining map. Others have been following, and now we are lucky to have Thally, Table, Baby Wale, La Columbe, Seasonal Pantry’s Supper Club, A&D, Sundevich, Cher Cher (which is my favorite Ethiopian at the moment; give it a try if you haven't yet), and so many other great places that have opened, and many great chefs are planning to move in soon. These are exactly the type of small businesses that we want in our neighborhood, and I want them to survive, both because I think that they are good for our neighborhood, and because I personally enjoy them. Moreover, without those restaurants, the storefronts would be dark at night, and the area would be less safe.

Thus, I do not think a liquor license ban would be good for our neighborhood at this time. On the other hand, I think that applications should be reviewed carefully every time they come up and when there are problems, so that we can avoid or get rid of neighborhood nuisances.

-- After local businesspeople came before the ANC this year to plead for better parking, ANC2F proposed a study for a parking lot on S Street, on a property located in ANC1B, but abutted ANC2F. The proposal was quickly shot down by S Street residents and ANC1B. How can ANCs facilitate a response to chronic parking problems that will be satisfactory to the different neighborhood constituencies?

Parking is, and will continue to be, an issue here. There is no way around that. This just isn't the easiest area to park. But many residents are getting around that by using other methods of transportation. We should encourage that and make it as easy as possible. We should increase the access to Capital Bikeshare, ensure that bike lanes are safe and respected, provide more bike racks, and allow easy access to shared cars and rides. I have experience working with the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) on these types of issues as the founder of the Transportation Committee for my child’s charter school, and I would like to continue such work in our own neighborhood.

But there will be times when parking can't be avoided. I think that ANC2F has done a wonderful job this year in creating a visitor's parking pass that has proven so effective that it will be used as a model for other parts of the city. To the extent that more spots are necessary for residents and valets, we may need to think out of the box more and work more closely with neighboring ANCs.

-- ANC2F was sued last year in connection with a far-reaching Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request which required Commissioners to divulge information from their personal email accounts. Should Commissioners be compelled to divulge such information? How can a balance be struck between a Commissioner's personal affairs and the need for transparency in government decisions?

Over the past 12 years of my day job as an attorney - as a law clerk in a local federal court, as an associate at a law firm, and as a federal government attorney - I have had the opportunity to view discovery and FOIA requests from many different angles. I have seen the importance of such requests, and I truly believe that our society is better because we are all armed with the ability to seek information that may not otherwise be available to us. Thus, I think that such requests must be taken very seriously.

On the other hand, the requests must be tailored for the specific situation. Only those documents that are relevant to the situation should be requested. Figuring out which documents are relevant is always a bit of a negotiation. Virtually all requests are originally overbroad, and a compromise must be reached. In the situation you cited above, my understanding is that the document request was worded very broadly, including a request for all emails with the term "resolution" in them. Clearly, as the ANC makes many resolutions about many issues, this would have resulted in many irrelevant documents. Thus, I would have tried to negotiate that we include only those documents that include the name of the restaurant at issue, the address and possibly a few other related terms.

Having been a litigator, I am not a fan of litigation. It is generally a waste of everyone's resources. Thus, to the extent possible, if someone has a question, I would love to discuss it with them before it gets to a point of formal litigation. I would work with them to find common ground, to provide what everyone can agree would be reasonable in a manageable timeframe. As the judge I clerked for, a star mediator himself, told me when I was interviewing with him while still in law school years ago, any case that is litigated to completion is lost. That is never the best result.

-- There was recently a proposal to allow churches and private businesses to be eligible for ANC grant money. Do you think churches and businesses should receive these grants? Why or why not?

I was at the meeting in which this was raised, and although there were valid points in favor of allowing churches and private businesses to receive grant money in some instances, I believe that there are easy work-arounds that would be more advisable.

As background, this was raised in the context of security cameras. Some residents had requested more security, including security cameras, in some areas. The discussion centered around whether the grants could be given to churches or local businesses who would use the funds to place security cameras on their property to watch the neighborhood as the residents had requested. Although it may make sense in some instances to install such cameras, there are currently rules forbidding the issuance of grants to churches and private business. This rule makes sense as we shouldn't be using city funds to prop up individual businesses or religious institutions.

However, it would be easy enough to achieve the same goal by funneling the grants through neighborhood organizations that would oversee the use of the funds for the intended purpose. In fact, this was actually done at the last meeting, when an organization that was not a formal non-profit applied for a grant. As there were concerns about sending the money directly to an individual, the Logan Circle Community Association, a local nonprofit, offered to receive the funds on behalf of the neighborhood group and oversee that they were used for the intended purpose. Thus, all the concerns were allayed, and the cause received the funds. The exact same process could be used by churches and private businesses if they have legitimate reasons to receive the funding.

-- Is there anything I should have asked but didn't?

Not that I can think of at the moment.

End of interview

The election will take place on Tuesday, November 4. Thanks to all candidates for responding to my questions.

Cheater's Guide to Dream City -- Part 17 (City on Trial)

This is the seventeenth installment of a series (see the first installment here) summarizing the 1994 book Dream City: Race, Power, and the Decline of Washington, D.C.by Harry Jaffe and Tom Sherwood. This book has recently been republished as an ebook and a paper book. HBO has plans to use material from the book to make a movie about the life of Marion Barry.

Chapter 15: City on Trial (two of three)

Just before the start of Barry's 1989 drug trial, one of the lead investigators on the case told another investigator: "Unfortunately, a lot of those jurors are going to base their decision purely on the issue of race. If I'm a juror, and think that the investigation was racially motivated, I vote to acquit."

The second investigator "simply couldn't believe it; he certainly could never accept it. 'You're dead wrong', he said. He looked away for a moment and said, 'I hope you're dead wrong' " (Kindle location 4909).

On the first day of the trial, Barry sat with his lawyer, R. Kenneth Mundy, an African-American. His wife Effi sat in the second row of spectators. US Associate Attorney General Jay Stephens also was in the audience. Ricky Roberts ("tall, stiff, light-skinned African American" (l.  4948)) made the opening statement for the prosecution on June 18, 1990.

" 'This is a case about deceit and deception,' he told the jury" (l. 4928).

Mundy's tactic was to put the government on trial.

" 'This case is about the deals the government made with the devil,' he said, asking jurors to remove the headlines from their minds, and pretend they had just awakened from a long sleep. 'Seven years ago the government made a determination that it would get Marion Barry, and it would to to any lengths, any extremes to get him' " (l. 4930).

"Ken Mundy... was a master of making jurors see the world through his eyes. He played the homeboy attorney, talking to the twelve men and women as if they were neighbors" (l. 4955).

"Mundy had no special love for Barry and vacillated before taking the case after the Vista bust. He had supported his cousin, former council chairman Sterling Tucker, against Barry in the 1978 mayoral campaign. He knew that defending Barry now would require a full frontal assault on the system of justice, and he wondered what the members of the 'club' would think of him. In his moment of indecision, NAACP executive director Benjamin Hooks personally urged him to take the case" (l. 4960).

Nelson Mandela started a visit on DC on June 25, while jurors heard testimony from women on the receiving end of Barry's unwanted sexual advances.

"The mayor had vowed to keep a proper distance between his tawdry trail and Nelson Mandela's triumphant celebration and put his intentions in a letter to Mandela's tour committee ..." (l. 4992).

However, Barry appeared at a private fundraiser for Mandela. "Barry showed up with ten aides, bodyguards, and a photographer. Pushing and shoving, they forced their way into the room just so that Barry could have his photograph taken with Mandela. Barry's stunt preempted the fundraiser, and thousands of dollars were lost as the mayor kept the Mandelas occupied while one of his aides went looking for a key to the city" (l. 5001).

Barry showed off his pictures with Mandela in the courtroom to reporters in the press section.

Hazel Diane "Rasheeda" Moore described her multi-year drug-fueled affair with Barry. Mundy made Moore look bad on cross-examination.

"Street vendors did a brisk business in T-shirts that said: 'Bitch set him up' " (l. 5027).

"Effi Barry escorted her husband back to the District Building after Rasheeda Moore's first day of testimony, took him into his office, and slammed the door. Aides then heard the First Lady scream: 'I'm a person too. I have to sit and listen to all this. How do you think I feel?' " (l. 5028).

"That night the mayor took his wife for a suprise appearance at a rally for Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan at the Convention Center, just one night after Nelson Mandela's speech..." (l. 5029).

Barry had had a "rocky relationship" with Farrakhan, a vocal anti-Semite. He accused Barry of "bowing down" to the Jews who had contributed to his election campaign. But at this moment they made common cause.

The next day, Farrakhan tried to appear in the courtroom as Barry's guest. The judge barred Farrakhan for the duration of the case. The action was eventually reversed after the American Civil Liberties Union filed a complain, but by that time Farrakhan had moved on.

On the same day Farrakhan was barred, the jury saw the video of Barry smoking crack at the Vista Hotel for the first time.

Outside the courtroom, "...most saw the quick clips played on the TV news. The distilled version showed two scenes: the mayor drawing deeply and professionally from the crack pipe, and authorities crashing noisily into the room. The people who judged Barry's guilt or innocence on the single frame that made newspapers all over the world -- the picture of Barry hitting the crack pipe -- got an even more one-dimensional view" (l. 5086).

"The issue of who first mentioned drugs was debatable, but once Barry had the crack pipe, it was quite clear that he knew exactly what to do with it. There was no doubt he bought crack, that he possessed crack, that he smoked crack. The evidence seemed to ensure a conviction, but it was neutralized by the following scene showing the police and FBI agents piling into the room. It was a violent and disturbing scene" (l. 5094).

"The Vista tape, besides being an embarrassing peep show, left the impression that Barry was hoodwinked twice: once to come to the room and again to smoke crack. It didn't fit the legal definition of entrapment, but that was irrelevant. It looked like a trap, a con job" (l. 5095).

"Ken Mundy knew that, and he made certain that the jurors saw the tape over and over again. It turned out to be his best weapon" (l. 5096).

Cheater's Guide to Dream City continues next week

Further installments will appear on successive Fridays. All posts will be cross-posted on the ad-hoc "Cheater's Guide to Dream City" blog.

Full disclosure: I have a commercial relationship with Amazon. I will receive a very small portion of the money people spend after clicking on an Amazon link on this site.

This is a great book and well worth reading in its entirety.

Interview with Charlie Bengel, Candidate for ANC2F District 06

This is a written interview with Charlie Bengel, who is running for Commissioner of district 06 in Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 2F/Logan Circle. It is the only race in ANC2F that will have two candidates on the ballot -- see SALM blog post of August 11.

(From ANC2F's website)

Bengel's opponent is Danielle Pierce. Read an interview with Pierce here.

District 06 is the easternmost district in ANC2F. It included Blagden Alley and Naylor Court. It extends through Shaw and down to Mount Vernon Square. The Washington Convention Center is in this district. It is the green box on the right of the map at right.

Don't know your ANC district? There are two search tools: one by the DC government, the other by Code for DC.

– Where can voters go to learn more about you?

First, thanks David, for allowing me to answer your questions and publishing your blog. It’s a great resource for residents who cannot make the ANC meetings.

A bit about me: I was born in Fairfax and grew up in Florida, returning to the DC area over 15 years ago to work in the family real estate business, where I am now the CEO. I am privileged to lead a top 50 real estate company in the US with nearly 500 agents and employees working in offices in DC, Maryland, and Virginia. A few years ago I was named a 40 Under 40 Business Leader by Washington Business Journal and, earlier this year, to the prestigious Top 200 US Real Estate Leaders list by the Swanepoel organization. Once elected, I will be the only Commissioner in 2F to own a business (three District locations; one in Shaw), which makes me uniquely qualified for the position of Commissioner since so many of the Commission's duties intersect with small business owners.

In the community, I previously volunteered as an Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) reserve officer for a number of years, which gave me a unique perspective on crime, its prevention and the importance of an active citizenry in crime reduction. I also continue to mentor high school students as a volunteer mentor and have been assisting my condo board with the large Marriott development that is proposed behind our building.

Additionally, I have raised nearly $750,000 for Children's Hospital in the District through my leadership position in my company and our generous agents, staff and community.

To learn more and follow my campaign, voters can check out BengelForDC.com, twitter.com/BengelForDC, and facebook.com/BengelForDC. I also urge voters to email me at Charlie (at) BengelForDC.com as I very much would like to meet voters for coffee and discuss community concerns and ideas.

– What's your position on recent attempts by the DC government to limit conversions of single-family homes into multi-unit residences?

This is a very complex issue as it deals with affordable housing, private property rights, the original intent of the R-4 zoning designation and the simple fact that most people do not want new development next door.

Currently, R-4 allows for up to two units per building and I do not believe that adding two more would drastically change a neighborhood as long as any addition fits in with the character of the neighborhood. We have all seen what appear to be aesthetically pleasing pop-ups and pop-ups that clearly do not fit within the character of the neighborhood.

The reality of housing demand is that the units priced lower are much more in demand and affordable to younger professionals - typically those moving into the city. If that housing stock can be increased without destroying the characteristics of a neighborhood, I am supportive.

Lastly, the Office of Planning needs to proactively plan! Instead of a patchwork of rules made to deal with a particular issue, the city needs real planning in order to deal with current and future housing needs. As this occurs and allows for the development of housing that is needed, the row home issue can be readdressed.

– In June, Ward 2 City Councilmember Jack Evans went before ANC2F and suggested a liquor license moratorium might be appropriate for the area. What do you think about Evans' suggestion, and about liquor license moratoriums in general?

Instead of a blanket moratorium, I’d prefer to deal with bad actors on an individual basis. Most of the liquor license holders are good business people and neighbors and we should be encouraging growth of businesses that the community wants. That said, I believe that the Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration (ABRA) needs to improve when it comes to aggressively dealing with businesses that are an ongoing nuisance to the community.

– After local businesspeople came before the ANC this year to plead for better parking, ANC2F proposed a study for a parking lot on S Street, on a property located in ANC1B but abutted ANC2F. The proposal was quickly shot down by S Street residents and ANC1B. How can ANCs facilitate a response to chronic parking problems that will be satisfactory to the different neighborhood constituencies?

Parking in an urban area is always challenging and there are no easy answers. However, I do not think that the government building or providing a facility for parking is the answer. Let's recall that the city spent $40 million on a taxpayer-funded garage for DC USA. At one point, due to lack of use, the garage was losing $100,000 a month. I do think the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) should study parking rates, as District meter rates are quite inexpensive when compared with the most expensive rates in the country. I'd also like to see a graduated fee program studied, similar to demand-based pricing on express lanes in Virginia. Regardless, parking will remain an issue and, with the public transit options we have, including Metro, the Circulator, Capital Bikeshare, Uber and the like, customers should try to leave cars at home whenever possible.

Also regarding parking, I am in favor of the renewing the visitor parking permit program for ANC2F as it allows residents to let friends and contractors park when they visit.

– ANC2F was sued last year in connection with a far-reaching Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request which required Commissioners to divulge information from their personal email accounts. Should Commissioners be compelled to divulge such information? How can a proper balance be struck between a Commissioner's personal affairs and the need for transparency in government decisions?

Without commenting on the merits of this particular suit, I believe that Commissioners are compelled to follow FOIA requests. Commissioners should also use a separate email account, ideally the account provided by the city, for commission business.

– There was recently a proposal to allow churches and private businesses to be eligible for ANC grant money. Do you think churches and business should receive these grants? Why or why not?

First, I think it is great that ANC 2F has a plan to deal with surplus cash instead of hoarding it like some other ANCs do.

I think that businesses and churches can, and often, do good work in our community. If the businesses and churches can articulate that the money will be used for non-commercial and non-religious use, I am supportive. I am also supportive of the grant program to encourage property owners to install cameras, as these cameras have been integral in the apprehension of criminals.

– Is there anything I should have asked but didn't?

In the next few years we will continue to see massive growth within 2F06, much of which will take place in Blagden Alley and the parcel between L & M Streets along 9th St NW. My front window faces Blagden Alley, and I drive past the proposed Marriott development every time I leave the parking garage. The community needs an advocate during the planning and construction process of all of the planned development, large and small, and I will be that advocate.

The development proposals discussed above, along with the upcoming “The Colonel” apartment building, could add 500 residents and 500 hotel rooms in ANC 2F06 alone. With this will come more activity, retail and likely raise property values. Unfortunately there will also be increased parking issues, noise and other nuisances.

Regarding those nuisances, I feel strongly that an ANC Commissioner should be the primary liaison between residents and city agencies and other elected officials. If a resident calls 911 or 311 and does not receive a solution to his or her problem, the Commissioner should step in and do everything possible to get to resolution, all the while communicating promptly with all parties. As a resident, I have already had numerous quality of life issues (illegal parking, illegal dumping, potholes, crime, missing parking signs, Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) permitting confusion, etc.) addressed by the city and I look forward to continuing that progress as Commissioner.

End of interview

The election will take place on Tuesday, November 4. Thanks to all candidates for responding to my questions.