Whereas the power of eminent domain is being more and more used by thousands of public and private agencies, $3 billion already having been allocated to hundreds of communities from coast to coast for urban renewal; and Whereas the following points are considered to represent an absolute minimum of the reforms required to protect the rights of residents, businessmen, and property owners of not only the District of Columbia but of the entire United States of America as well: 1. That the primary philosophical concern of urban renewal be people and not structures and that adequate housing be provided for potential displacees prior to actual displacement; 2. That all persons previously certified as eligible for and waiting for public housing and public-assisted low-income housing be so accommodated prior to any new displacement of families by an urban renewal project; 3. That displacees be reimbursed for court costs and legal fees when a rendered decision for a change in the appraised value of property is favorable to the appellant; 4. That a local referendum be required for every urban renewal project before any planning funds are allocated; 5. That the local housing and building codes be shown to have been vigorously enforced for a susbtantial period prior to the granting of any planning funds for an urban renewal project; 6. That where rezoning is contemplated under a renewal plan, the power of eminent domain not be invoked until the present owner is given ample opportunity to either rehabilitate his property or dispose of it after said rezoning so that he, rather than the new owner, would benefit by any enhancement in value; 7. That resale of all property acquired by the Government destined for other than public use be on a strict and regulated basis of competitive bidding; 8. That alleged structural unsoundness be backed up by substantially unassailable evidence based on documented surveys prepared by private appraisers; 9. That no property be acquired for demolition or other purpose unless it is proven to be structurally unsound; 10. That all possibilities of conflict of interest be eliminated by appropriate legislation; 11. That the current maximum of $3,000 moving expenses for displaced businesses provided for by the highway program and a maximum of $25,000 provided for by current urban renewal legislation be changed to reflect actual total moving costs, reimbursement be made of incidental costs incurred by business displacees such as legal fees, loss of good will, loss due to interruption of business, loss due to announced or impending urban renewal action, and cost of refinancing including rate-of-interest increase on new mortgages; and 12. That the present formula for appraisal be completely overhauled and that as a minimum the owner be paid an amount equal to what it would cost to purchase the equivalent property, including all improvements, in a comparable neighborhood with full consideration being given to the land value of the acquired property: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Independent Citizens of Adams-Morgan respectfully request that the Members of the House of Representatives, the Senate, and their committees carefully consider the inclusion of these reforms by appropriate amendment of H.R. 3189 and S. 628 before these measures are finally approved; and be it further Resolved, That this organization respectfully requests that thoughtful and careful consideration be given to the drafting of appropriate amendment to the National Housing Act based on much needed reforms including those mentioned herein. DUTTON FERGUSON, President, 96-227-65-pt. 6— -10 JAMES A. PATTEN, Vice President, JULY 3, 1963. STATEMENT PRESENTED BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WASHINGTON, D.C., BY INDEPENDENT CITIZENS OF ADAMS-MORGAN, WASHINGTON, D.C. My name is Alva A. Dawson. I represent the Independent Citizens of AdamsMorgan, an organization formed in order to express the views of citizens who, for a variety of reasons, are opposed to the Adams-Morgan plan and to the methods used by the RLA in promulgating the plan. Most of us were originally enthusiastic supporters of urban renewal, in general, and Adams-Morgan, in particular, until closer acquaintance brought disillusionment. On January 1, 1958, the Housing Act of 1954 (sec. 314) was used as a basis for requesting approval of the Adams-Morgan area for urban renewal. At that time, it was then estimated 8 percent of the dwelling units were substandard (including overcrowding of occupants and not necessarily bad structures). Yet the figure now used by the RLA is about 20 percent. We challenge the correctness and source of this new 20-percent estimate. We oppose the following features of the plan : 1. We oppose the unrealistic, hypocritical, so-called relocation plan. We feel that much additional human suffering and degradation will result unless displacement of any more families should be prohibited until such time as suitable, satisfactory relocation housing, either public or private, shall actually be in existence and available to the new displacees and to those now on the waiting lists from other areas of the city. This continuing exploitation of defenseless people is becoming a national scandal. In this connection, we feel that no consideration whatsoever has been given to the "relocation" problems of those who would be displaced because they could not afford to conform their property to the standards dictated by RLA. 2. We oppose the "scattered site" public housing "sleeper" clause. We feel that this proposal would (a) Lower the value of property nearby. (b) Make it impossible to assemble properties in a block for further development if one parcel were permanently owned by a Government agency. (c) Use land too expensive at present, and potentially even more expensive in the future after downtown progress is completed, for a landuse precedent which, once established, would be difficult to eliminate or limit. (d) Negate the increased prosperity anticipated for the 18th and Columbia Road business area and have an adverse effect on the increased prosperity anticipated for the downtown area. (e) Inhibit private restoration in the residential area. (f) Further accelerate the exodus of taxpayers to the suburbs. 3. We oppose the inclusion in the boundaries of the plan of that residential area of Adams-Morgan presently designated for rehabilitation only. Areas A and B should be removed from the plans boundaries. With regard to area C, this area has continuously been presented as a slum area. It mu t be noted that within area C is 16th Street, known as Embassy Row, and Crescent Place, with its million-dollar estates. Area C also includes the Henderson Castle site, which Mrs. Eugene Meyer has officially requested to be removed from the plan. The apartment houses, hotels, and embassies in this area, as well as the fine homes on the north side of U Street between 17th and 18th Streets, and the many substantial businesses in the heart of this area, should indeed be reevaluated. By removing these important segments, which obviously do not need drastic governmental action, it may be possible to do a better job-and at a much lower cost-for those limited segments which do, in fact, need assistance. We feel that private enterprise can and will do a better job. In fact, we do not believe sufficient blight actually exists to justify their inclusion. Private restoration will continue to be inhibited so long as the status of the properties remains uncertain due to the threat of condemnation or the threat of the proximity of public housing on "scattered" sites. 4. We oppose the autocratic, inflexible, and inequitable sanctions the plan proposes against the light industrial, service commercial businesses in area B as well as the 18th and Columbia Road business firms in area B. In this connection, we urge you to study the benefits that would accrue to the four officers and wives holding 50 percent of the stock of the A-M Development Corp., who plan to get possession of the prime business properties at the 18th and Columbia Road intersection and who have urged votes for the RLA plan consistently at local organizations. In view of the past record in the District of Columbia of 40 percent of the displaced businesses going under, great pains should be taken in the future to protect and encourage these businesses whose taxes, services, and payrolls benefit us all either directly or indirectly. Forty percent of 141 firms to be displaced is 56-plus firms which may be expected to be unable to weather being displaced, if past experience is borne out. 5. We also oppose the proposal to banish all licensed rooming houses to commercial zones because we feel this is an unnecessary and impractical idea. Strict, "letter of the law" enforcement of the already existing codes would eliminate the objectionable features which are, in part, a result of the inadequacies of the "relocation plans" of past renewal projects. 6. We oppose also the closing of 19th Street behind the new Hilton Hotel and the usurping of the airspace above the Riggs Bank's parking lot and all other arbitrary decisions which have been made without consideration for the convenience, welfare, and property rights of those most affected. We oppose all of these, but most of all we denounce the underlying cause behind all the failures and inadequacies of this agonizing experiment; i.e., the deliberate, arrogant evasion and distortion of the usual democratic safeguards of democratic processes. Mr. Gartenhaus has told you of the man-hours of labor expended by the members of the planning committee. We urge you to study carefully the personal cases of favoritism in the plan that benefit some members of the planning committee and the community council. Mr. Gartenhaus has failed, however, to emphasize sufficiently the indefatigable industry of the RLA field staff in attempting to manipulate, coerce, and propagandize the citizens of the area to agree with the RLA's decisions. For 4 years, with the use of all of the resources of the Federal Government, arguments for one side of a difference of opinion have been professionally promoted, promulgated, modelled, photographed, sketched, mapped, dramatized, advertised, and indoctrinated. Those citizen-amateurs who questioned or disagreed have been discriminated against, humilitated, "reorganized" out of office, "court-martialed," ruled "out of order" when they were not, characterized publicly as "irrational,” have had meetings adjourned while they held the floor, have had their letters ignored and not acknowledged, and finally, have been denied the right to speak at all or even to squeeze into the meeting room which now accommodates by actual count seven chairs besides those reserved for the committee and the staff. The rules by which meetings are run have been, changed at will in order to throttle debate or silence objectors. Voting has been held open for several consecutive meetings in order to round up the needed affirmative votes. Delegates have been allowed to vote even when they admit they have not had meetings of their groups in months and have never been instructed by their groups regarding the issue at hand. One delegate's block group oted 17 to 2 against "scattered site" public housing and yet he worked actively for it, helping to frame a subcommittee report in fulsome praise of the concept. All of these and many more irregularities took place with the full knowledge, complicity, connivance, or approval of the RLA staff. The tragedy implicit in the farce is that animosities between groups have been fostered in order to divide one faction from another and to prevent any united resistance. Luckily, our independent citizens group has been able to counteract some of this false propaganda by the frank clarification of issues in open discussion with representatives of various District organizations. Not being omniscient, nor professional, we may not have been able to contact them all, therefore, we ask that you make allowances for a wide variation among the recommendations of these groups depending upon how much they may have based their decisions upon RLA publicity alone. In conclusion, we recommend to your indulgent consideration the request that you decide not to proceed with the Adams-Morgan plan and that all restrictions be speedily removed from the area so that private enterprise can move ahead without further apprehensive delay. If this is not your decision, however, may we urgently plead that you limit and amend the plan in the six areas discussed above and, most important of all, that you retain local control over its administration. Very truly yours, Independent Citizens of Adams-Morgan: Alva A. Dawson, George RESOLUTION OF INDEPENDENT CITIZENS OF ADAMS-MORGAN, WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPTEMBER 21, 1964 TO THE COMMISSIONERS Whereas the Commissioners of the District of Columbia filed on July 21, 1964, the "workable program 1963-64 of the District of Columbia" with the Federal Housing and Home Finance Agency, which they are required to do to continue to receive urban renewal funds, and stated therein that only 66 premises, or less than 6 percent, in the entire Adams-Morgan urban renewal project have not been brought up to code requirements; and Whereas the $45,000 resurvey of buildings in the Adams-Morgan urban renewal project area, filed by the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency with the District Commissioners on August 27, 1964, just 1 month later, shows 31 residential buildings as having substantial defects, and 140 nonresidential establishments as having substantial defects; In addition, this resurvey sublimely ignores the more than $75 million (estimated) being spent in the Adams-Morgan area on restoration, rehabilitation, and such new construction as the two Cafritz buildings (North and South Universal Buildings) and the Washington Hilton Hotel. Further, this resurvey states that "57 percent of the buildings used in whole or in part for residential purposes and 52 percent of the nonresidential buildings are characterized by one or more of the deficiencies which, as noted in section I or this report, are to be taken into account in determining whether an area is eligible for designation as an urban renewal project." However, no list of the buildings and structures having substantial or minor defects is provided in the resurvey report. Such a listing would clearly indicate that the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency has an elementary concern for the citizens of Adams-Morgan, or believe in government of, by, and for the people; Whereas, the standards and criteria used in this resurvey are in the public interest; they are open to public question for these reasons: 1. They are not in conformance with the requirements of the housing and building codes now in effect in sectors of the District of Columbia outside the Adams-Morgan area. 2. These standards and criteria, if used by the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency in executing their urban renewal projects, would require widespread demolition and prohibitive expense to all property owners. 3. They have no basis in the Housing Act of 1964, or in the Senate bill 628 as amended by the House District Committee; and 4. These standards and criteria have adversely affected real estate values and improvements in the Adams-Morgan area by imputing major slum and blight conditions to an area where an objective study and report, based on the District's present housing and building codes, would reveal a comparatively minor list of substandard conditions confined, mainly, to two streets in Adams-Morgan; and Whereas the standards and criteria employed by the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency in this survey are objectionable, they must be rejected because 1. Excessive land coverage is defined in the report on the resurvey as existing whenever a building does not provide space for off-street loading, unloading, or parking in the quantity of at least one parking space for each 3 living units. This requirement discriminates against apartment houseowners in the Adams-Morgan area as it is not a citywide requirement, and its strict enforcement as planned by the District of Columbia RLA-would, in most cases, be impossible without prohibitive expense and wholesale demolition. 2. Adequate ventilation and light, while eminently desirable, are primar ily factors related to the use to which the affected premises are put-rather than being structural effects per se. The District of Columbia RLA, similar to the Cleveland, Ohio urban renewal agency in like situations and for the same reasons with regard to perfectly sound buildings, find the local codes inadequate for Adams-Morgan. 3. Incompatible land use refers to conditions which are presently governed by voluminous provisions of the District of Columbia building code (zoning), which were arrived at after years of court decisions and legal resurveys. 4. Faulty interior arrangement also depends upon the use to which the interior space in question is put, and is governed by present codes. 5. Lack of adequate sanitary facilities simply indicates overcrowding, a condition which could be easily corrected by proper enforcement of the housing and building codes, as this kind of deficiency could just as readily occur after urban renewal treatment as before. 6. "Obsolescence," another loose and all-enveloping term meaning whatever the local officials of RLA want it to mean here. Accordingly, the resurvey report includes conditions among which are inadequate ventilation and light, faulty interior arrangement, and lack of adequate sanitary facilities-plus a provision requiring an elevator in every residential building with units on the fourth floor and above, and an elevator in every nonresidential building in which the third or higher floor is used for commercial purposes. These standards are not required even in new buildings in the District under the present codes. These demands, added to the one regarding parking facilities above, would probably bankrupt every apartment house owner in the Adams-Morgan urban renewal area, as well as in the entire city if applied to the entire city's buildings. For, if these standards are adopted here, they will surely be adopted later citywide. Whereas it is clear from a study of this report on the $45,000 resurvey that it would, if approved by the District of Columbia Commissioners, open the door to unlimited urban renewal and bulldozing similar to the blitz that leveled the 560-acre Southwest Washington urban renewal project area. This would be the consequence, despite the fact that the Housing Act of 1964 requires the Administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency, in working with local officials, to utilize the tools of code enforcement and rehabilitation in preference to the bulldozer technique; and Whereas it is obvious that the Adams-Morgan urban renewal project area does not need the demolishment of one-third of the acreage; does not need to have one-third of its population displaced; and does not need new and fancy housing and new building standards imposed by the District of Columbia RLA. What is needed in Adams-Morgan is strict enforcement of the entirely adequate housing and building codes of the District of Columbia, without favoritism, and without application, a back-door method envisioned by some here to bring the RLA into our area: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Independent Citizens of Adams-Morgan demand from the Commissioners of the District of Columbia a list of the defective buildings and structures (residential and nonresidential) in detail, with the defects noted, and object strenuously to the terms "slum" and "blight" which the District of Columbia RLA bandies about, and which terms have done more than anything else to encourage any blight instead of impeding its development as we citizens here desire; and be it further Resolved, That we call upon the Commissioners of the District of Columbia to reject, the Adams-Morgan urban renewal project's plan developed by the District of Columbia RLA because it does not recognize "The plight of property owners in urban renewal areas" as President L. B. Johnson said is given marked attention in the National Housing Act of 1964. Nor is provision made in the Adams-Morgan urban renewal project's plan, as President Johnson said of the National Housing Act of 1964, so property owners in the area: "Can rehabilitate their homes and businesses instead of having to move from the path of the bulldozers." Organizations supporting this resolution include: The Kalorama Citizens Association, The District of Columbia Federation of Citizens Associations, the Kalorama Triangle Restoration Society, the Adams-Morgan Light Commercial Institute, the 18th and Columbia Road Business Preservation Association, the Property Owners Protective and Improvement Association, the block associations and councils of: Ashmead, Biltmore, Committee for Progress Through Private |