Today we won a huge victory for 1322 9th Street in Naylor Court!
Unanimous board support to block the raze permit.
Unanimous support to deem the building as a contributing structure in the alley.
A powerful admonition of the owner for the deplorable state of affairs over 20 plus years.
A compelling argument for the owner to immediately secure the properly before it collapses while awaiting the Mayor's agent decision. (assuming an appeal)
A motion to immediately work with HPO and DCRA to secure the property.
For those of you who are audiovisual learners the proceedings were telecast and archived through the link below.
http://view.liveindexer.com/ViewIndexSessionSL.aspx?ecm=634946629570022500&indexSessionSKU=YwKMqAbDyBwosobq9LJTZg%3D%3D&siteSKU=f6xCazh2CRSq6dywHLuElw%3D%3D
For those of you who prefer reading, I have attached my prepared remarks, introductory remarks and my own summary of the discussion.
Thank you all, for your support through this process.
January
24th 2013 HPRB - HPA #13-091[1]
Spontaneous
Introductory Remarks
I
introduced myself and pointed out that while Brendan Meyer had correctly
pointed out that the building was in an historic district, I pointed out that
it had the additional recognition of being on the National Register of Historic
Places.
I thanked Mr. George Alexander – the managing principal for the architectural firm of Swanke Hayden Connell Architects, for so elegantly detailing exactly all of the various signs of neglect and abuse to which this building has been exposed over the past 20 or more years. [I do not think they realized how damning their testimony was for their case]
I
stated that the tree alone was an excellent indicator of the length of time the
property has been abused. None of this happened overnight. [Dr. Ehrlich
attempted to place the blame of the destruction on Darryl Carter by saying that
the property had been OK until after the year during which construction was
undertaken on 1320 9th Street when the lot was leased. The Board,
Martin Smith and I jumped all over this false accusation.]
I
explained that I also owned a garage that did not have its own walls and was
essentially a front with a roof connected by the walls of three other
buildings.
I
stated that I knew the men who worked and struggled in this building over the
years.
I
stated that I had no secondary interest in the property and that I was
appearing at the hearing on my own.
I
brought up the concept of “party wall law” and that there are obligations a
property owner has when a party wall requires support (as in the North wall).
Prepared
Remarks
Members of the board, I greatly appreciate the opportunity
to speak on behalf of my neighborhood and little building in Naylor Court,
which is under threat of being destroyed. Thank you.
As a former cardiac surgeon with a deep interest in
architecture, historic preservation, sociology and urban planning, I have come
to somewhat anthropomorphize old buildings. Like people, some have had hard lives;
some live a life of grace. Some are poorly built, while others are robust. Some
develop infections with trees growing out of them or rats living in them. Unlike people, they cannot
defend themselves against neglect and
abuse.
Restraining or protective custody orders can be obtained
through the courts to protect people from harm when the intent to harm has been
clearly established. “At risk historic buildings” are afforded similar
protective rights through the Historic Preservation Review Board and the
National Register of Historic Places. In this instance, while the intent to
harm 1322 9th Street NW has been suspected by the community for many
years it is now in writing.
The building under discussion is the last of 7 that
originally existed on this property according to a 1924 map. Jack Evan’s office
has told me that this property’s owner, Dr. Ehrlich, has already been judged to be negligent by the city through the
blighted property tax levied against him so any accusation of
negligence is not a personal opinion. It has been established. He has simply not
maintained this building allowing it to deteriorate badly.
He has tried to create a parking lot on this site without
collaborating with the neighborhood – a plan that was quickly shut down by the
neighborhood. Brendan Meyer was also involved in this case (1322 9th Street NW, HPA #11-457, permit/paved parking lot in
September and October 2011).
Dr. Ehrlich has allowed oil and toxic chemicals to
contaminate the soil on this property for years. The unsecured building has
become a home for rats, graffiti and criminal activity.
From a physician’s perspective, this situation is like neglecting
someone (in this case a building) with an easily treatable, but potentially
fatal illness, then watching them slowly become extremely ill and ultimately
euthanizing them without their consent, using the fact they were now going to
die anyway from lack of care as the justification. Dr. Ehrlich has made the
decision to kill or raze the building thereby destroying all evidence of
negligence.
I recognize that: -
“It
has been a central premise of American law that owners can use their property
as they wish, provided only that they do no harm to
others.” [2]
However: -
“The
basic idea was that the task of government is not to make us good. The State’s
duty was only to protect us from the bad and
the proprietor’s duty was only to refrain from doing harm.”[3]
The management of this property has served our neighborhood
badly. Dr. Ehrlich has not responded to letters that I have personally sent to
him. He was invited to this month’s ANC-2F meeting by one of the commissioners
but he did not bother to turn up – which shocked everyone at the meeting. He
has had many years in which he to be a good steward of this historically
contributing building, yet he chose to neglect his property to the point that the
city now considers it to be blighted. The men who worked for many years in this
building also suffered, having to live with an unrepaired roof that leaked
badly, inadequate ventilation for toxic fumes generated by painting cars and
many other health and safety issues.
I am hopeful that the board in appreciating the value of
this structure within the context of the historic alley, its unique collection
of buildings and the neighborhood at large, will vote to preserve it. While it may
be a humble building on the scale of architecture, it is nonetheless a unique
part of the fabric of the history of this very
special collection of small buildings. Any collection of interconnected
entities is of greatest value when it is intact. When even small elements are
missing the whole is diminished. When many elements are missing it becomes
worthless.
This
building is a heritage resource – reflecting “not only historic properties but natural features and human
communities of distinctive culture”[4]
- that needs to be shared with future generations as part of a collection
of buildings. It has its own story to share of the spirit of another time in
the history of Washington D.C. Many
Naylor Court and Blagden Alley structures have already been destroyed through
similar neglect, during an era that was less appreciative of this collection of
buildings.
(See maps 1924 and 1989)
Summary Points
HPA
#13-091
1. The ANC-2F commissioners
have each voted to oppose the request for a raze permit for 1322 9th
Street NW and added their “great weight” to the discussion today. It was the
opinion of the ANC, that irresponsible property owners should not be “rewarded”
for their property neglect by being allowed to completely destroy a building
that they have allowed to partially destroy itself and thereby eradicate the
evidence of their negligence.
2. The
ANC recognizes that Naylor Court and its sister alley (Blagden Alley) are in
the early phases of a renaissance of reconstruction. Once buildings such as the
one under discussion are destroyed it is impossible to reasonably replicate
them. To do that is not in the spirit of historic preservation but more in the
spirit of Disney Land replication. That is sadly already happening in these two
alleys.
3.
The Blagden Alley/Naylor Court Association unanimously passed a
motion to oppose the raze permit request.
4. A petition to block the raze permit
has been signed and submitted.
5.
The HPO has deemed this building to be a contributing structure.
6. The
building is part of a collection of buildings in Naylor Court each of which has been recognized
by the National Register of Historic
Places since 1990.
7. Precedent
for preserving old auto repair shops in Blagden Alley and Naylor Court was
established recently by a staff report and recommendation (HPA #12-503 -
November 1, 2012). That report recognized
that the Blagden Alley garage and its “construction
are consistent with themes established in the Blagden Alley Historic District
nomination.”
8. Precedent
for blocking raze permits for small contributing alley buildings was also
established by HPO in HPA #11-488 and confirmed by the Mayor’s Agent who stated
that “preservation law prohibits
unwarranted demolition but seeks constructive solutions” (Byrne and
Tregoning)
9. The 1322 9th Street
NW building has been badly damaged by neglect, but it can be restored (despite
predictable protestations to the contrary by the owner) and there are
individuals who are willing and able to do this.
10. The
stable next to this building (1320 9th Street NW) where Darryl
Carter Inc. is now located is an exemplary model of small building salvage,
restoration, adaptive reuse and stewardship that should be emulated throughout
the alley. Someone should be given the opportunity to do the same for this building.
11. Failure
to materially improve and develop this property over the years of ownership has
blocked others who are better prepared to create an appropriate
street-to-building relationship on this land, that is in keeping with the
spirit of the neighborhood and the Convention
Center Area Strategic Plan produced by the Office of Planning (approved
June 2006 through Resolution 16-0687).
12. The
neighborhood strongly believes that owner should not be rewarded for his
negligence by being allowed to obliterate the problem that he created.
Discussion
·
There was considerable discussion about
the definition of what a building is
since in this case it was argued by Dr. Ehrlich’s architect that this building
did not have its own North and South walls. It was repeatedly referred to as an
infill building.
·
Brendan Meyer did not seem to give much
weight to the petition because it was online even though the signatures were
validated by e-mail address
·
The HPRB was not aware that Dr. Ehrlich
owned both lots since they sought to contact the owner affected by the North
wall. It was explained to them that Ehrlich owned both properties.
·
The chair of the HPRB was emphatic in
her chastisement of Dr. Ehrlich for having allowed his property to languish so
badly. She was rather impassioned about this and angry.
·
Dr. Ehrlich was not able to state what
repairs he had done to the building during his ownership of several decades.
·
Dr. Ehrlich was told by a board member
that she thought he was not taking this process seriously and was concerned
that the building would further deteriorate pending the Mayor’s agent hearing
(assuming an appeal).
·
It was clear to everyone that the
request for the raze permit came as a result of the blighted property tax
assessment and that it was not a move to improve the property.
·
The architectural firm asserted firmly
that the property was beyond salvage. [this is only their opinion and can be
countered by others]
·
It was clear to the board that there
are individuals who are interested in developing and salvaging this property. [The
chair must have been contacted independently since she knew of this before I
mentioned it]
·
The chair of the board pointed out that
the structural report states in the last sentence that the walls of the
building “could collapse at any time” and yet even with this acknowledgement of
poor condition and safety concerns, the property owner has done nothing at all
to secure the building. The interior was an atrocious mess. The photos were
damning when Dr. Ehrlich stated that the lot was clean.
·
The HPRB exhorted the owner to immediately secure the walls and the
roof and to work with Brendan Meyer on this along with DCRA.
Conclusion
The HPRB voted unanimously with essentially no dissent to:
1.
Deem the building as a contributing
building in the alley
2.
Adamantly deny permission to raze the
building
3.
Explore the path to restoration
[1] http://planning.dc.gov/DC/Planning/Historic+Preservation/About+HPO+&+HPRB/Who+We+Are/Historic+Preservation+Review+Board/Monthly+Public+Notice/HPRB+January+2013/HPRB+Agenda+and+Consent+Calendar,+January+24,+2013
[2]
Property Rights and Public Benefits, Joseph L Sax in “Past Meets Future” Saving
America’s Environments – National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1992
[3]
Ibid
[4]
Ibid
