Saving urban corner stores needs public assistance: Mott's Market on Capitol Hill, Washington, DC

===

No writing because I've been sick--my first cold since covid, and likely because I stopped being hardcore in precautions, I learned my lesson--and ongoing network problems, which I finally isolated to the network, not the computer.  Now I have to get Comcast to deal, which I'm not looking forward to.

======

Traditionally, we don't think of high income neighborhoods as needing extranormal assistance when it comes to community development, but it's not true.  Need is relative, and while such neighborhoods do well compared to low income neighborhoods, they can still have needs.

I wrote about this years ago in terms of why the Georgetown commercial district is deserving of such attention and support--not only because of its place within the retail landscape of DC proper, but in terms of its place in the regional retail landscape, and how it competes with destinations in Maryland and Virginia ("Turnabout is fair play: why Topher Matthews/GGW is wrong about TIF incentives for a department store in Georgetown," 2012).  

And even within DC, as DC government planning initiatives have led to the redevelopment of areas within the city like Navy Yard, CityCenter, and the Wharf, which in turn create new competition supported in part by tax incentives.  

This is an issue with Friendship Heights too ("Friendship Heights and the production of retail decay," 2020) as well as other neighborhoods like Golden Triangle, Adams Morgan as a nightlife district, and Capitol Hill/Eastern Market.

Occasional blog commenter Will brought to my attention the case of Mott's Market, a "corner" market near his house.  Mott's is one of many corner stores across the Capitol Hill neighborhood ("Farewell to Mott's Market," Hill Rag).  

Some, in locations on neighborhood arterials, seem to do reasonably well, while most seem to languish, and over the years, many (food markets, carryouts, other retail) have been converted to single family housing, because of the high demand for residential space.

Mott's has closed and the owner put the building up for sale.  

It reminded me of Sheele's Market in the Georgetown neighborhood of DC (pictured, left), which was saved as the result of neighbors coming together to pay the property owner a "fee" for opportunity costs, which kept the market open despite competition for conversion.

-- "Conservation easements to preserve commercial use," 2009

From the Georgetowner article, "Scheele’s Market Saved by Neighbors; Farewell Party for the Lees":

Malcolm “Mike” Peabody and his neighbors successfully rescued Scheele’s Market at 29th and Dumbarton through an agreement with property owner Jordan O’Neill to pay $70,000 for improvements and other covenant details. The neighborhood group, Friends of Scheele’s, has worked to keep the store, which served the town for 118 years, operating for another 15 years and with a new shopkeeper, Dougjuk Kim.

But the Sheele's story of success is based on four elements: (1) probably historic designation of the property, which made expanding it (not converting it) a nonstarter; (2) a property owner willing to keep the property as retail; (3) a large enough base of potential customers to enable the business to be successful, also including the element of limited direct competition; and (4) residents willing to put money into the project to preserve the commercial use.

A fifth element might be the institution of a conservation easement or covenant, but I think that a property owner might be unwilling.  They'd get a tax deduction, if they have a great enough income to be able to take advantage of it, but it would encumber the property forever.  (Just like with conservation easements for farmland and other types of open space.)

Neighbors attempt to save Mott's Market.  A group got together, creating the Save Mott's Market Coalition, to try to save the Market.

They came up with money for a downpayment, and the means to put in an offer, but they were outbid ("Neighbors Look to Save Mott's Market in DC," Commercial Observer, "How a ragtag team of neighbors is banding together to preserve DC history," Washington Examiner).

In some respects their attempt was doomed from the outset because the property was already being marketed for sale, they needed time to come up with money and a business plan,  and they didn't have a property owner willing to consider community-based offers.  

Unlike the Scheele's case, this is complicated by the fact that the building isn't historically designated, so it can be built upon--if it's zoned commercial and I think it might be, that means up to five stories, and the store site is pretty close to Safeway on Kentucky Avenue (0.4 miles), so the business value of a retail use is reduced, unlike the Scheele's where the nearest large grocery is about a mile away.  

So this makes the property especially attractive to a developer interested in adding to the property for its value as residential property.

To me the way to have maintained the retail use would have been to make it a market and prepared foods place possibly expanding to the second floor, but even then, not being on a major neighborhood street like East Capitol, it's more difficult for such a use to be successful, especially on the outer edges of the neighborhood, where previous attempts at such businesses have tended to fail.   

Even so they needed more time than they had to come up with a business plan that could convince a loan officer.

Plus, even if the organizing coalition gets everything perfect (and it doesn't appear that this group did), it's tough to come up with the money in a short period of time, especially when competing with investors who can make all cash bids.

Need for more proactive approaches: community foundations and banks.  Were I them, the first thing I would have done is reach out to Capitol Hill movers and shakers, and the Capitol Hill Foundation, to see if a joint bid could have been developed.  

But they weren't too clued into the nature of the community ecosystem in Capitol Hill, and frankly Capitol Hill as a community ecosystem isn't always forthcoming or proactive either.  

But even then it would have been difficult because it's likely that CHF hasn't thought much about this element of preserving and improving the neighborhood. 

It's not like they have a strategic plan to deal with these kinds of issues in a concerted way. And healthy neighborhoods don't really have "plans" or a good planning infrastructure to help them address issues that may come up (what I call the need to have a set of consensus neighborhood priorities.)

It would have been a big lift to convince CHF and/or the National Capital Bank to act in the short time frame the Save Mott's Market Coalition had to make an offer on the property.   

But there is no question that neighborhoods like Capitol Hill, Georgetown, and others have the resources to do this kind of community-initiated property development.  But even they need help to link "the means" to processes and programs to pull it off.

BTMFBA: By the M* F* Building Already.  But this isn't any different from my general point about BTMFBA ("BTMFBA: the best way to ward off artist or retail displacement is to buy the building") and the need to create community-wide institutions capable of buying and holding retail properties and subsidizing retail uses, to maintain retail uses generally, and creative uses specifically, but also being able to act quickly when the circumstances warrant to acquire and hold property.

I argue that the best model I've come across that does this is Semaest in Paris ("The SEMAEST Vital Quartier program remains the best model for helping independent retail," 2018).

Semaest controls more than 750,000 s.f. of retail space and has assisted more than 700 retail businesses.

While Semaest operates across Paris, there is the means to do this for Capitol Hill, if Capitol Hill Foundation were to make it a priority, and join with the neighborhood-based bank, National Capital Bank, to do so, creating a program to save neighborhood corner stores.  

But CHF and NCB need more than a couple weeks to come up with such a program...

DC corner store discussions in zoning.  As part of the 2007 zoning rewrite, encouraging corner stores was a priority.  A lot of residents were opposed.  But my point then (which Will disagrees with) is that for the most part it is a non issue, because most neighborhoods lack the population density necessary to support retail organized at that scale.  

I wrote about this recently, comparing my old neighborhood micro commercial district on the 6200 block of 3rd St. NW to the 15th and 15th district here in Salt Lake ("Thinking about the opportunities for success with neighborhood commercial districts: comparing Manor Park in DC to 15th and 15th in Salt Lake," 2021).

There are some successful corner stores in DC, mostly in Capitol Hill and Georgetown, plus Broad Branch Market in Chevy Chase ("Across DC, a resurgence of the small neighborhood grocery store," Washington Post).  Columbia Heights and Petworth and other places have such stores too, but they tend to be few and far between.  Where they still exist tend to be in more densely populated areas of the city.

But if zoning is supposed to support corner stores, at the same time the city ought to develop other congruent policies in support of corner stores.

Saving versus expansion.  But it's not just a matter of creating new corner stores, it's ensuring that the existing ones can survive and thrive.  I remember dealing with this in the early 2000s, having had discussions with the Korean American Grocers Association, but I don't remember why we didn't move forward with the initiative.

The "city" and other stakeholders ought to create a master inventory of the existing corner stores, determine their situations and identify those where property acquisition might be a necessary option, along with providing other supports to improve the success of the stores.

Such stores need help across the city, regardless of the income level of the neighborhood.

Conclusion.  All neighborhoods need plans.  Even well off neighborhoods.  The reason is to be able to address neighborhood priorities and to be able to have the funds in place to act with alacrity when necessary. 

-- "Systematic neighborhood engagement," 2007, updated in:
-- "The need for a "national" neighborhood stabilization program comparable to the Main Street program for commercial districts: Part I (Overall)," 2020
-- "To be successful, local neighborhood stabilization programs need a packaged set of robust remedies: Part 2," 2020

At the same time, cities need to be more proactive in building systems able to help retain the "third places" and other community assets--either nonprofit or for profit, like corner stores--that contribute to neighborhood place, community, etc. 

SEMAEST is the best model, and corner stores and other unique retail assets are elements that should be addressed by such planning processes.

Note that in Capitol Hill, a similar issue came up 7 years ago, the preservation of the neighborhood Boys and Girls Club, which was redeveloped ("Hill East Neighborhood Coalition Pushes to Reopen Bidding on Boys and Girls Club," Capitol Hill Corner).  

 I didn't agree necessarily with their position, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't have been considered ("Neoliberalism and DC's Capitol Hill, where residents continue to express opposition to a proposed affordable housing project for seniors," 2015).

If anything, the failure then should have been an indicator of the necessity of developing a plan and program for dealing with similar issues were they to come up again, as they did with Mott's Market.