Page images
PDF
EPUB

So I will just put in the statement, and I won't bore you with any more it is really along the same line. It is quite short. If I may Mr. MULTER. Your statement will be received and made a part of the record at this point.

Mrs. HINTON. Thank you very much.
(The statement of Mrs. Hinton follows:)

STATEMENT OF PROGRESSIVE CITIZENS ASSOCIATION OF GEORGETOWN BEFORE
THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MAY 3, 1963

I am Mrs. Harold B. Hinton, third vice president, and for the last 15 years chairman of the Committee on Zoning and Planning of the Progressive Citizens Association of Georgetown.

The "agitation" against chanceries came before 1958. That is why the regulation was included in the 1958 zoning. The chanceries before 1958 had ruined the residential area around Kalorama and Sheridan Circles.

Our association has long and consistently worked for good zoning practices in Georgetown and in the National Capital as a whole.

Sound zoning has done much for Georgetown and we think it vitally important to the future of the entire District. Only sound zoning practices will prevent overcrowding, overloaded parking facilities, incompatible and disturbing coming and going, lowering of taxable values, and many other evils.

In the interest of good zoning and for the protection of our home areas the Progressive Citizens Association urges the passage of S. 646 in a form which will extend the exclusion of chanceries to all single family zones, R-1 A and B, R-2, R-3, and R-4, plus the apartment zones.

As early as 1924 the Supreme Court in the Euclid case sustained zoning as a proper exercise of the police power. It appears to us that good zoning practice requires a law zoning out chanceries from all residential zoning areas, singlefamily detached, semidetached, row and apartment, and not merely from the areas now zoned for single-family residences.

The existing zoning regulations of the District of Columbia take care of this very well and clearly in so far as ordinary office buildings are concerned. There seems no good reason why chanceries which are diplomatic office buildings, should enjoy privileges which would not be enjoyed by office buildings owned by American citizens.

This seems to us an abuse of diplomatic privilege upon which it is appropriate for the Congress to legislate. In fact Congress can help the Zoning Commission deal adequately with the subject.

The Progressive Citizens Association of Georgetown respectfully and earnestly requests your honorable committee to report this bill favorably with an amendment to include all residential zones, particularly the R-3 row-house zone characteristic of Georgetown, in the prohibition against chanceries.

Since the introduction of S. 646 our association voted unanimously to support it with such an amendment as just indicated.

PROGRESSIVE CITIZENS ASSOCIATION OF GEORGETOWN,

Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN,

Chairman, House Committee for District of Columbia,
Washington, D.C.

February 15, 1963.

DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: The executive committee of the Progressive Citizens Association of Georgetown has directed me to send you a copy of a recent letter addressed to Senator Fulbright regarding his bill S. 646.

The members of our association believe that it might be of interest to you to know of their unanimous opinion that the fine legislation contained in bill S. 646 should be expanded to include all residential zones in the prohibition against diplomatic office buildings (chanceries).

I am forwarding a similar letter to the Honorable Alan Bible, chairman, Senate Committee for the District of Columbia.

Sincerely yours,

PETER BELIN, President.

PROGRESSIVE CITIZENS ASSOCIATION OF GEORGETOWN,
February 13, 1963.

Hon. J. WILLIAM FULBRIGHT,
Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR FULBRIGHT: At a meeting of the Progressive Citizens Association of Georgetown held on Monday, February 11, a resolution was unaninously passed favoring your bill S. 646 but urging its expansion to include all residential zones in the prohibition against diplomatic office buildings (chanceries).

Such offices constitute a commercial use in residential zones. They are equally detrimental to the real estate as well as the residential values of those areas zoned for row houses and/or apartments as they are for those areas zoned for detached houses.

The zoning regulations themselves place office buildings in commercial zones and exclude them from all residential zones. This successfully protects the residential areas except in the case of diplomatic and consular offices which appear to have been accorded very special consideration if approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustment.

Because of intercession-partly of foreign, partly of Department of State, origin--it has become almost impossible to control chancery location through Board of Zoning Adjustment action. Thus, homeowners have appealed to the Congress as the ultimate authority dealing with the proper location of office buildings of foreign governments within the District of Columbia.

In joining this appeal to the Congress, the Progressive Citizens Association of Georgetown wishes to point out that those areas zoned for row houses, such as is largely the case in Georgetown, as well as many areas zoned for apartments constitute as valuable properties and are as highly-if not more highly-taxed than the very best areas zoned for detached one-family homes.

We respectfully submit, therefore, that the intrinsic value of the row-house homes and their zoning integrity are deserving of equal protection under the terms of your bill as is accorded detached one-family homes. Respectfully submitted.

PETER BELIN, President. Mr. MULTER. Mr. Bryan, one matter that is troubling me and may be troubling some of the other members of the committee, is the matter of law that is involved here. That is, whether or not we can by regulation or by law proscribe a use of premises that has previously obtained.

In other words, can we constitutionally say that the building that is presently being used as an embassy or chancery cannot be thereafter used for the same purpose?

Mr. BRYAN. Is that in relation to the language in H.R. 5882, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. MULTER. Yes.

Mr. BRYAN. As I read 5882, there is what is known as a saving provision in respect to existing properties being used for chancery purposes, and that language is equivalent to what is already in the Zoning Act.

May I read the sentence?

Mr. MULTER. Before you do, let me make clear what I have in mind. I think you will agree that we cannot by new zoning law or regulation prohibit a person or company from using its property as they are presently doing.

Am I right as to that?

Mr. BRYAN. I agree with that, unless a compensation is paid.

Mr. MULTER. That is right. You can't deprive them of the use of their property without due process of law and without compen

sation.

Mr. BRYAN. Right.

Mr. MULTER. And the enactment of a statute or regulation which says hereafter you may not use this property for the purpose for which

you are now using it or have been using it for some time past, would be unconstitutional.

Now, it has been suggested that this new regulation apply to chanceries hereafter to be established, that it shall not affect the chanceries presently in existence, as long as the same country owns and operates the chancery. But that the new regulation shall apply in the event of a change of ownership, so that if the country now occupying a chancery decides they need larger space and offered it to another country, if that other country should acquire it after the enactment of this legislation, that the country then acquiring it could not use the premises as a chancery even though the selling country had used it for that purpose.

Do I make myself clear?

Mr. BRYAN. I understand the question.

Mr. MULTER. Is that constitutional? Can we do that?

Mr. BRYAN. I may say we haven't had to deal with that precise situation. The present Zoning Act and zoning regulations don't create such a situation. However, it is my personal opinion, my own only, that the limitation on the use of the the limitation with respect to an existing use cannot constitutionally without due process of law and without compensation be taken away from the owner of that property merely because some other person is going to make the same use of it. I think the use continues if it has a right to continue at all, has a right to be continued regardless of who is using it.

Mr. MULTER. That is my impression. And therefore I was disturbed by the suggestion that we write something into the law or the regulations that would say that it is all right so far as the chancery is continuing to be occupied by the present occupants but if that country should decide to sell it to some other country, that the new country could not use it for a chancery. That bothers me. I don't think we can do that.

Mr. BRYAN. It bothers me, too. I would hate to have to defend that.

Mrs. HINTON. Mr. Chairman, could I speak to a legal point on that which has already been before the Board of Zone Adjustment? Mr. MULTER. Are you a lawyer?

Mrs. HINTON. No, but I do know this point very well.

Mr. MULTER. I would rather get the opinion on this subject from lawyers.

Mrs. HINTON. Well, it is something the Board of Zoning Adjustment accepted and I was at the hearing, if I could tell you.

Mr. MULTER. The fact that they have done it does not change what the law may be. I would rather get the law from

Mrs. HINTON. They accepted it from an international lawyer there, who is my uncle. I was just going to say that my uncle, who is an international lawyer, was at the meeting and he made the point very well, and if you would let me, I will tell you.

Naturally, if you don't want me to, I will say no more.
Mr. MULTER. Go ahead and tell us.

Mrs. HINTON. This point was made by James Oliver Murdock, who is my uncle, formerly an international lawyer, now retired from George Washington University. He said that a foreign government represents the chief of state, I mean a diplomatic ambassador represents the chief of state of his country, and as such he has got

this chancery where it is as a special privilege given to his state, head of state, and therefore it cannot change from one head of state to another head of state; that it is not like an American nonconforming use which passes from one to the other, like a grocery store in a residential zone passes from one owner to another so long as the use is the same. This use got in there because it was given to a head of state represented through his representative, and therefore if another head of state comes in, another chancery from another country, that it doesn't apply. That was all.

Mr. HUDDLESTON. Doesn't run to the land.

Mrs. HINTON. It runs to the country because he represents the head of state. Not the land.

Mr. MULTER. This is what makes horse races and law suits. I disagree with the gentleman. We are talking about something, about a use that runs with the land and I think there are any number of cases that hold that you can't prohibit that use by new legislation without compensation and without due process of law.

Let's not argue the question of law, please. Let's leave that to the lawyers to supply to us. We could go on interminably and get nowhere. The committee will probably have to make the determination later as to whether or not we will do it, and if we do, let the courts decide whether it is constitutional or not.

Mr. MULTER. Is Mrs. Morris here?

I would suggest that it is now 2 minutes to 12 and any other witnesses who would like to file their statements, please step up and be identified for the record and file them so that we can close the hearing this morning

Mr. KEY. I would like to file my statement.

Mr. MULTER. Your name?

STATEMENT OF DAVID M. KEY, REPRESENTING SHERIDANKALORAMA NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL AND 2540 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, INC.

My. KEY. My name is David M. Key.

Mr. MULTER. The association you represent?

Mr. KEY. The association I represent is the Sheridan-Kalorama Neighborhood Council and also 2540 Massachusetts Avenue, Inc., which is a cooperative apartment house.

Mr. MULTER. That is a cooperative.

Mr. KEY. Yes. I own an apartment there.
Mr. MULTER. You are supporting the legislation?

Mr. KEY. Yes, unreservedly, but with one or two minor changes. which appear in my statement.

Mr. MULTER. The statement will be made a part of the record. (The statement of Mr. Key follows:)

My name is David M. Key and I am here today representing the SheridanKalorama Neighborhood Council, as well as 2540 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Inc.

The Sheridan-Kalorama Neighborhood Council is composed of several hundred residents of the roughly triangular residential area bounded by Sheridan Circle, Massachusetts Avenue, Rock Creek Park, and Kalorama Road to Connecticut Avenue and thence back to Sheridan Circle.

2540 Massachusetts Avenue, Inc., is a cooperative apartment house located within the foregoing area comprising 35 apartments of which I own one.

My purpose in appearing before you is to place both of these organizations solidly behind proposed legislation designed to prohibit the location of any further chanceries in this and other residential areas of Washington and to limit the numerous chanceries and other business-type buildings of foreign countries already located in residential areas to their present size.

As a chancery is merely a diplomatic term for an office, it is our contention that there is no valid reason why offices of this kind, any more than offices of any other kind, should be located in a residential area.

Unfortunately, however, our neighborhood is already saturated with chanceries and the point has been reached in certain areas, notably along Massachusetts Avenue, parts of Wyoming Avenue (in one block there are eight of them) and Kalorama Road, where there are so many chanceries that the impression given is that of a business rather than a residential district.

Both organizations strongly feel that the time has come to call a halt to this situation which unless soon corrected will, due to the rapid increase in personnel of foreign diplomatic missions, military and naval staffs, purchasing commissions, etc., only become worse and eventually destroy the residential character of this beautiful section of our city.

Accordingly we strongly endorse bill 5882 though we recommend that the wording of page 2, line 6, be broadened to include all residential areas and we also heartily support section 17 of bill 679. Together, these provide a clear-cut solution to our problem and should put an end to the present uncertainties which have been a source of such constant worry to the residents of area.

In closing, I want to thank you for your courtesy in having given me this opportunity to appear before you.

STATEMENT OF JAMES R. LATIMER, REPRESENTING CRESTWOOD CITIZENS ASSOCIATION

Mr. MULTER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LATIMER. I am James Latimer. I live at 3910 18th Street NW., a property owner. I represent the Crestwood Citizens Association of that area in opposition to chanceries in residential areas. I would like to file my statement.

Mr. MULTER. The statement will be made a part of the record. (The statement of Mr. Latimer follows:)

Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, I am James R. Latimer, a property owner residing at 3910 18th Street NW. I represent the Crestwood Citizens Association in opposition to the location of chanceries in residential

areas.

Our members have invested their savings in substantial detached homes in a strictly zoned residential area with every reason to believe that they could rear their families in the environment of a quiet and peaceful neighborhood. We wish to preserve the character of these residential neighborhoods wherever possible and we call upon this committee for protection.

We deplore the gradual encroachment of commercial enterprises upon such neighborhoods which usually comes through the selfish profit incentive of some individuals under the false guise of progress or necessity.

We know from experience that chancery is actually a business enterprise with its activities bringing traffic congestion and noises entirely out of keeping with the character of a residential neighborhood and that police control of these activities is made more difficult by reason of the fact that diplomatic immunity is not always exercised with proper discretion.

We can see no reason for the invasion of residential by chanceries when there is no scarity of commercial property for this purpose. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF MRS. WILLIAM STUART NELSON, REPRESENTING ROCK CREEK EAST NEIGHBORHOOD LEAGUE, INC.

Mrs. NELSON. I am Mrs. William Stuart Nelson. I live at 1722 Varnum Street NW. I represent the Rock Creek East Neighborhood League, Inc. I am here by their authority to give support to bill

« PreviousContinue »