Stupid is as stupid does

both from the perspective of gaps in DC historic preservation and demolition laws, and the writing in the local press about this, as evidenced in the City Paper blog post, "Anything Worth Saving Here?: H St. Rowhouses Edition."

I have various comments in the response, but then, why do I bother?

This is an extract from an email I wrote a couple days ago after the hearing:

The average untrained preservationist, and I suppose that includes me at times, doesn't always distinguish between the level of significance necessary for the creation of a district vs. a landmarking of a single or group of buildings. The issue of integrity--all four original buildings being intact and in this case, one glaring omission--made it a difficult case. Tim Dennee's staff report on the landmarking issue was well argued, with a surprising hint of sympathy on the complexity of the matter.

Those pursuing the application knew it was a long shot, but knew that it had to be pursued in order to try to deal with the property owners in a substantive way. I know that HPO and probably the Board doesn't like the landmark application process being used in this way, but the lack of other remedies in DC law forces this type of action.

Most of my writings about the need for more robust processes and systems in DC planning, zoning, and building regulation come from dealing with these kinds of issues and getting crushed by the gaps between platitudes and the dearth of substantive ways to deal with problems that come up. E.g., I asked Muriel Bowser why the hell she is pursuing placarding for raze permits without adding any additional remedies to the law? She said notice is important. I said why?, when you can't do anything in response...

The only possible remedy that exists in DC law currently to stop a demolition is the landmarking of the building/or the inclusion of a building within a historic district as a contributing resource.

What frustrates me about other people who testify about these kinds of issues, is that they aren't making the connections between the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and processes all the time, and that they don't know how to articulate the problems in a useful way. They end up being scolds and because they can't see why the problem exists, they come off as testy.

The real problem is that the Comp. Plan is mostly platitudes--in the context of law it is a bunch of shoulds and "mays" not "shalls"--and that there isn't a desire to put into place focus and protections on things that matter because that would interfere with the real estate development process in substantive ways.

I am still angry about the technical amendments bill from a few years ago because--as the blog entry from the other day indicated--I testified for years about dealing with putting into place demolition protections whether or not buildings are designated. In the technical amendments legislation, a provision on this was included. But it didn't stay in the bill. I suppose it was probably put it in knowing it would have to be given up, but that by giving it up the rest of the bill would sail through. So the building industry assn. is still happy about getting Chairman Cropp to take that section out of the bill. I'm still pissed.

But we needed to organize more and better, and as I keep writing and agitating, I don't think we (preservationists) have been very good at articulating the links between preservation and the quality of life and attractiveness of the city that people want to consume as residents and visitors, and how this is the foundation of the city's competitive advantage.

As far as the Board being frustrated, I am frustrated too, because the classic tome on preservation revolving funds was published in 1976, but in all that time, the preservation community in DC hasn't managed to create such a fund. Had one been in place, that's how we could deal with this particular matter, if only to stabilize the building to prevent the leakage between that building and the Atlas, which is driving the Atlas crazy--they have been pushing the matter via the Condemnation Board, because of the damage to their own property.