It gets curiouser and curiouser (3rd Church of Christ, Scientist and historic preservation)

-------------------
Update: David Alpert of Greater Greater Washington went to the hearing. Read his report: Third Church: Decide another day."
-------------------

One of the biggest problems in government from the standpoint of transparency, openness, and fairness is the conflict over development in terms of government in its regulatory role and having to be fair and evenhanded, versus the revenue producing pro-growth mode of government, focused on making it easy to conduct business (see "City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place" by Harvey Molotch for a discussion of how local political and economic elites are united behind a pro-growth, pro-development agenda). This is a result of the fact that for the most part local governments are reliant on property taxes and sales taxes for the bulk of their revenue.

DC's major local industry other than the federal government, is real estate development and the related support industries (banking, law, parking management, etc.) including construction.

In DC government, historically there has been great tension between the pro-development tendency and the regulatory responsibilities and requirements of fairness and evenhandedness, including dealing with citizen-resident views and concerns about development and its appropriateness.

One of the best discussions of this often terribly unseemly process (e.g., for myself, dealing with various development matters often makes me feel, as a citizen, dirty) is the book Dream City by the journalists Harry Jaffe and Tom Sherwood. It's out of print but well worth searching for and reading, especially chapter 4 on development, construction and "planning" during the early Barry mayoralty. If you can't find the book, this review, "Dream City: Race, Power, and the Decline of Washington, D.C., 1964 - 1994," from Washington Monthly, is magisterial.

Charles Schultz "Pigpen" character from the Peanuts comic strip.

Earlier in the year, the Historic Preservation Review Board voted to designate the Third Church of Christ, Scientist, an urban brutalist building on 16th Street NW in the Central Business District, as a historic landmark, based on the relevant criteria in the DC Historic Preservation Law and regulations.

Third Church of Christ, Scientist, DC. DC Preservation League photo.

Now, I wouldn't have voted for it, had it been up to me, but I understand the reasoning and support the decision. I wrote about this in August, in "The Third Church of Christ, Scientist challenge to the DC historic preservation laws."

Also see the DC Preservation League webpage on the Third Church of Christ, Scientist matter.

But because the site where the Church is located--at 16th and I Street NW, two blocks from the White House and surrounded on all sides by commercial buildings--is in high demand for redevelopment (just like the WMATA headquarters site, of which its redevelopment is the most important "transit priority" that Mayor Fenty has, according to "See "D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty says moving Metro top priority" from the Washington Business Journal), the Growth Machine favors the redevelopment of this site, and therefore does not favor the landmarking and preservation of this building.

Confirmation of this comes from Growth Machine stooge Terry Lynch, director of the Downtown Cluster of Congregations (to think that in the early 1990s I voted for him for City Council), in submissions to the HPRB as reflected in quotes in various articles, including "Church Awarded Landmark Status Despite Objections of Congregants." from the Post.

... as well as the fact that Neal Albert, Deputy Mayor of Planning and Economic Development, and the city's biggest implementer of the pro-growth agenda, submitted a letter to the HPRB before the hearing, stating that the Executive Branch did not favor the landmarking of the building.

Despite such pressure, based on an objective review of the application and the relevant criteria, the HPRB decided to go ahead and landmark the building.

However, a decision to landmark a building can be challenged, although special grounds are required for a challenge to be successful. Typically, these cases are heard by the "Mayor's Agent." Typically, the Mayor's Agent is named by the Mayor, to hear such cases as needed. Usually the Mayor designates a political hack (such as former Deputy Chief of Staff Gregory McCarthy under Mayor Williams) with the title.

But over the past few years, the hack in turn has designated a qualified person, which for many years has been an administrative law judge (not the guy who sued the Dry Cleaners for $54 million for allegedly losing a pair of pants, see "Court Rules for Cleaners In $54 Million Pants Suit" from the Post), Rohulamin Quander, who has developed expertise in historic preservation matters over the years he has heard cases.

(Even this isn't the final stage. Cases can be appealed to the DC Court of Appeals or even the Supreme Court, if that doesn't suffice.)

However (not that this is unprecedented, because as pointed out above, the Growth Machine controls the local political elite, and the process is dirty and unseemly), to hear the Third Church challenge to the landmark decision, the Mayor sidestepped Judge Quander and instead designated Office of Planning Director Harriet Tregoning to hear the case.

Now I love Harriet, I think she's great, and she cares about preservation. But at the end of the day, she has to do what she is told. She is a political appointee who serves at the pleasure of the Mayor, and she reports to the Deputy Mayor of Planning and Economic Development, Neal Albert, who is on record for the Fenty Administration as opposing the landmark application.

(I should note that DC law allows preservation organizations such as the DC Preservation League or the Citizens Planning Coalition or the Capitol Hill Restoration Society to file landmark nominations for buildings that they do not own, in their defined area of interest--for DCPL and CPC it is the entire city, for CHRS within the historic district and their specifically defined interest area beyond those borders).

This is a conflict of interest of major proportions and is another example of why dealing with development issues in the city often makes me feel dirty.

(To reiterate the point)

DC Preservation League filed a submission to the Mayor's Agent with four major points, one is about the evidence of conflict of interest, and two of the others are points I have made all along, that a challenge to the landmarking on religious freedom grounds is not supportable, and that to claim special merit for new construction, a plan for new development must first be submitted. In short, there isn't a cause of action yet, therefore consideration of a challenge to the landmarking of the building is premature at this time.

- DCPL Letter to Mayor's Agent 10/27/08

The hearing is Tuesday. I wanted to attend but because I have a big report due, I won't be able to make it.

Whether or not you agree that the building is worth being designated, the defects of the process are bothersome, and should be challenged.