DC Audit- Report on DCRA and vacant buildings

This is a 2017 report Significant Improvements Needed in DCRA Management of Vacant and Blighted Property Program.This is out of the Office of the District of Columbia Auditor.

DCRA is currently experiencing turmoil as the head left and three officials were fired recently.

I have no comment as I might actually want a permit for something in the future, but I just wanted to put this out there.

Langston- A failure of DC Govenment

I'm cross posting this with the InShaw blog.

There is no point to using an updated photograph of the Langston School. It was rotting away 10 years ago when the picture was taken in 2007, it is still rotting away now and the way things are going, it may be another 10 years before the city actually brings this property back to the land of the living and legit.
This property is a vacant school in the DC government inventory. It was a school from 1902 til the mid-1990s. In 1997 it was a homeless shelter. By the time I moved here in the 00s, it was a vacant husk and only a homeless shelter when the homeless and others broke in. In 2013 it got on the National Register for Historic Places, so there is that. Around 2012 Langston was offered to charters, who have 1st dibs, and nobody wanted it. No charter wants it because it is an unmaintained structure with a rotted roof that is in need of a serious rehab work. Even Mundo Verde Charter School, across the street, which took over the still functioning Cook School building and built an addition, hasn't seriously pursued it. Langston is too far gone as a building to be of any use to a school.
Another complication is in the Slater School, another building that shares a playground with Langston. It is A.R.E. ARE is a social service organization and a daycare and it looks like they are also getting in on the Pre-K thing too. Slater is a poorly maintained building, but the tenant ARE holds on tight to its location. I strongly suspect ARE has powerful friends that are protecting ARE to the detriment of the Langston building. I suspect this because for at least a decade now, when residents bring up the nuisance property that is Langston to city councilmen or the council staff or city staff who show up to the local meetings, they seem to have no idea it exists and fail to get back to residents with a satisfactory answer.
The civic association for the area BACA, has recently formed a committee to try to figure out what could be done with Langston.
This is DC Government property. It is the Government of the District of Columbia's responsibility. Any demolition by neglect would be purely the fault of the local government. The DC government has failed the residents of the unit blocks of P and Bates.  But then again, the DC government is a crappy property manager.
Previous blog post about Langston- http://dcvacantproperties.blogspot.com/2014/07/langston-school-vacant-forever.html
Langston School Registration form- https://www.nps.gov/nr/feature/places/pdfs/13000143.pdf
Ward 5 Councilman Kenyon McDuffie- http://dccouncil.us/council/kenyan-mcduffie and http://www.kenyanmcduffie.com/

DC Auctioning Off a Bunch of DC govt owned property

Big ole hat tip to Scott Roberts of the Bloomingdale Blog regarding this big ole auction.

As far as I can tell this is totally legit. I've been to an Alex Cooper auction in Baltimore. It was a great house but just not on the block that would have made sense for me. As I remember no one bid on it, I don't believe that will be the case with DC properties, even the vacant lots.

It is an on-line auction which starts on January 18th and ends 1pm on the 23rd, and these are vacant lots, unfinished properties, multi and single family properties in NW, NE, and SE DC.

These are not like the old $1 auctions back in the Barry years. No, the deposit for almost all of them is $5,000 and the starting bid is $20K. It'll bet that everything west of the river will go for several times the opening bid, possibly around $100K at the least, even for lots.

I think this is a wonderful thing. The problem with properties that sit in the government's inventory is that they sit. And sit. And sit...... and...... sit. Right now the iron, or the DC real estate market is hot. There could come a time when it was like the 90s and you couldn't give away houses (crack, murder capitol, nightly gun fire and a high risk of getting beat up walking home, good times), so now is as good as anytime.

The ones that aren't vacant lots need a good contractor. There are strings. Many mention "Sold Subject to Covenants: The properties in this auction are being sold subject to an affordable housing covenant as well as a construction covenant. Failure to abide by these terms will result in the forfeiture of your deposit before closing or potentially the property itself once you have taken title. Please review the documents section for the full terms." So, you just can't buy it and sit on it and I'm not sure what the affordable housing thing is. If I were so inclined, I would want a property for my own personal use.

Hopefully, this will bring several properties back into use.

Legislation to Dispose of DC Govt owned vacant properties

Well we'll see where this goes.....
Councilmember Elissa Silverman has introduced some legislation that is supposed to deal with all the vacant properties that the DC Government owns. The legislation is called "Property Disposition Reform Amendment Act of 2017" and you can find the proposed legislation at this link.

The way I read it, there is a catch. Not a horrible catch, but a catch. Check out line 77 section 8B where it mentions something about residents with an income at or below 120% of the AMI. The 2016 AMI is $108,600, but if you want to get into household size and all that, check out this PDF. So she threw in a affordable housing idea. It doesn't appear it is a requirement.

I do hope it is like the way HUD disposes of property, giving possible owner occupant first dibs and then letting everyone else try for it afterwards to do whatever they want with it.

Washington City Paper article about DHCD thwarting DC City Council

This sort of relates to my belief that the city government is not always the best landholder. See DHCD Refuses to Comment on Derelict D.C.-Owned Anacostia Houses

1538 9th St NW- Off the list

The National Park Service FINALLY, finished the home of Carter G. Woodson.
I posted about the problem the structure was in February 2014.

3 years ago the property was a problem. The NPS put up a fence that was supposed to keep the homeless men who used the basement and door/window wells as a hang out and sleeping area. However, it extended out to the street blocking the sidewalk. So if you wanted to walk down 9th you had the option of walking in the street or crossing around 4-6 lanes to the other side.

Ten years ago, the blogs original author Ed mentioned it, and it was abandoned then too. Previously it was owned by Shiloh Baptist Church which still owns many, many crumbly 9th Street properties with no shame and no real plan. It was acquired by NPS in 2005.

Usually I complain about DC government properties that stay vacant for-ever, when no one has any idea what will happen to the property. When the federal government, the NPS, purchased it, there was a plan. But that was 12 years ago. Over a DECADE. So in the case of already vacant properties, remember this and a dozen other places around the city and things tagged "government" when even entertaining the suggestion that the city or the federal government take over, unless you're into waiting a decade or more for change.

Now don't plan a trip to the Carter G. Woodson house just yet. It still is not open to the public as of yet. It's safe enough for the NPS to let in a few VIPs for special visits. Good enough to me.


HT: DCist

The Vacant Property Enforcement Amendment of 2016, Bill 21-0598

So here is a link to the committee report. I read half of the PDF file as I decided to skip the testimony. That's background and not the legislation.

If the goal is creating affordable housing, this surely won't do that. What it looks like it will do is maybe, just maybe get DCRA to create something so people could find out about vacant properties and better report such properties to the city. Maybe. Maybe not, we'll see. That's the only thing I liked about it, and even that part I'm not too hopeful about. The other stuff was more fees, or more of the same.

Mentioned an the background material was something about getting the fees so that they would not get absorbed in the cost of doing business...... Um, I don't think that's how it works. Example, properties where the over due  property taxes are higher than the market value of the property. There's a word for properties with no room for profit, 'abandoned' or 'underwater.' Neither of those types of properties tend to lead to affordable housing unless the government steps in gains the property through eminent domain, hold on for too many years, have a neighborhood suffer through a zillion RFPs maybe a PUD or two, lotsa tax credits, and in 10-20 years you may get subsidized housing. The formerly vacant residential properties featured on this blog do not fall under the heading of "affordable".

Another thing mentioned in the background material were the exemptions, but not so much in the legislation. A significant residential project can take a year, depending on how you count the start of it . Anyone who has had a kitchen remodeled or the like knows these things, once you get a contractor who returns your phone calls, takes 2-3 times longer than the contractor says. It seems you still only get a year. Probate was also mentioned, but not addressed. So this does nothing about places like 509 O Street NW, which is as far as I know, still in legal limbo between the owner and the bank. Now it will be taxed beyond 'worth it' and still in legal limbo. Same goes for properties passed to bickering relatives or to be divided by spiteful divorcing spouses.

What I found more irritating was the press on it. According to the Washington City Paper "It will soon become harder for landlords to neglect vacant or blighted properties under a bill the D.C. Council unanimously passed today." Nope. For one 'landlord' was used incorrectly, if it is vacant or blighted it is not being rented and thus the owner is not being a landlord, just an owner. Since this is just increasing fees and decreasing the construction exemption I see no change for properties owned by abandoned LLCs or dead people. 

What would have been awesome with a supersized cup of amazing would have been legislation of how long DC Government owned buildings could sit around abandoned, blighted and vacant. Or apply these same requirements to the agency that holds several blighted residential and commercial  preterites and have the vacant tax rate come out of their budgets and credited to the owners who live adjacent to them, year after year. I guess I want real leadership and less 'do as I say not as I do.'

WAMU covers a vacant property owner- DC Government

See Anacostia Resident's Fed Up With Negligent Property Owner- DC Government
There is a quote:

"The last thing our neighbors here in Anacostia want is for us to dispose of a property to someone who just sits on it and doesn't do what they committed and promised to do."

Well that someone happens to be the DC government. Residents don't like it when private owners do it, when banks do it, or when a government body (DC or National Park Service, etc) does it. So who is doing it doesn't matter, people living next to a vacant property aren't calmed with the knowledge that DC government, DHCD in this case is the owner. It may even be worse because you can't charge DC government the vacant rate, the purpose of which is to incentivize owners to make property not vacant. DHCD has no incentive for a quick turnaround or repair.

What residents want it for it not to be a vacant/blighted property.  Some may want to keep it out of the hands of developers. Others would want DC owned property to help with homelessness or other housing problem. The fact DC government is the property owner does not automatically make things better. 

454 N St NW- update

Well this DC Government property has been on this blog since January 2014 and 2 years later it looks like it is getting fixed up and may join the land of the living. According to the DC Property Tax database the DC government purchased this thing back in September 2004.

If you look back at the old 2014 post, you can see from the photo that the building was boarded up, with peeling paint and the yard was a mess.

So if the government got it in 2004 and waited until 2016 to do something, something being sell it or have a non-profit or a developer do something, that's 12 friggin years of being an eyesore, and nuisance. Twelve years.

Is it me or does 12 years seem too long?

Well I'm glad this and possibly the neighboring property are possibly coming back to use as someone's home. Finally.

Langston and Slater DC Government's Demolition by neglect

Scott Roberts of Bloomingdale has on the BACA blog part of an article from the Washington Business Journal mentioning these two buildings.

Langston has been closed for like, ever.

Slater. Slater had/has some children's care inside that crumbly building. I'd shift some of the responsibility to the tenants on its state.

There are several other buildings throughout the city that are in good locations where the city lets the buildings rot. Giving them a historic designation did zero in making them functional. It just makes them more expensive to repair.

DC Vacant Property in Anacostia falls down

See Art of Ward 8's post Mother Nature Takes Its Toll on Historic Anacostia.
UPDATE:
The Washington City Paper has a longer article "After Historic Anacostia Facade Collapses, Neighbors Charge City with 'Demolition by Neglect'" and I have an address.
Mother Nature demolished the vacant properties but the City of the District of Columbia made it easy for her to do by leaving the structure open to the elements, for years. Looking at Google Street View's Time machine I see that in 2007 there was a little bit more 'there' there.

There appears to have been a roof. There were sides and a back.
June 2008 the sides were coming down. The roof was off and the interior, which looks a little burnt out, was exposed.
July 2008 most of the sides and the whole roof were gone.
2011 the property is mostly a facade with a steel bracing thing in the rear. We had the same thing going on at the O Street Market in NW DC.
Not much changed from 2011-2014.
Now 2015. Rubble. Now DC Government has a vacant lot.
Destroy a building in 8 years. Just add exposure and neglect.

Vacant in other places

A reader passed along two site that may be of interest to other readers of this blog (if I have readers... sometimes I'm not sure...). They are sites for Baltimore and Philadelphia, other northeastern urban areas with vacant property problems.

First is from Open Baltimore, their map of vacant properties in the city of Baltimore. That map is based on a table of over 16,000 vacant properties. I love how it is a .gov site and that the city is putting the information out there so citizens and others can view it and make decisions. I just wish the table had a notice date so one can see how long or how new a property has been vacant. The site says the data is refreshed every two months or as needed, so it is hard to judge how up to date it is. Another thing I found was I cross checked with a real estate site and found obviously vacant houses for sale and looked at the Open Baltimore site and found close addresses which made me wonder if the Open Baltimore data was off by one house.

Second is for city owned vacant Philadelphia properties. Sigh. I wish DC had something similar, so DC, it's politicians and citizens could see clearly on a map. The FAQ for the site provides some insight on what the city's goals are and that clarity probably helps make this politically feasible. For one resident homeowners whose primary residence is on the block can buy an adjacent city lot (make the neighbors happy). There are also clear looking steps for developers, small and large. Lower down the list are options for folks who want to lease city property for urban farming or community gardening.

The city's vacant properties in Anacostia

The Washington City Paper's Aaron Wiener has written an article "Is the City to Blame for Anacostia's Vacant Properties?" about some of the District government's vacant (and probably blighted) properties an historic SE DC neighborhood. Art and trash and government vacant properties don't mix.

The Vacant lot at FL and Q has a Twitter hashtag

In my day we called them pound signs. The Bates Area Civic Association blog reported about the hashtag, regarding the September 8th meeting where two developers gave presentations regarding the vacant government owned property at Florida Ave and Q St NW. The hastag is #FlaQNW.

One of the developers has a email, (engage@fluxonflorida.com) but no website. The other developer was a bit more old school and had big posters of what they hoped to do on the site.

Vacant Property not Unclaimed Property

Looking at the stats for this website, it appears I get a few people looking for unclaimed or abandoned property, which is not what this site is about. This site is about vacant buildings and land.
If you are looking for unclaimed property go to
http://cfo.dc.gov/service/unclaimed-property
Unclaimed property may include: wages, bank accounts, money orders, traveler checks, CDs, overpayments, deposits, life insurance payouts, and stocks and dividends and the like. The District of Columbia's CFO's site has a database (love open government) where one may search to see if they have any unclaimed property. If you got something in the mail from someone saying you or a family member has unclaimed property, don't waste a dime paying them. Get it yourself. Just go to the website, mail in the form, and if you are the rightful recipient, you will get it back for free.

Florida and Q (Sq 0615, lots 75, 149, 152, etc) NW

This is old news, but the city is soliciting offers for several parcels of property owned by the District of Columbia, with the goal of making them into something useful. This includes the lots at Q and Florida Avenues NW, which is across the street from Joe Mamo's lot.
There was a hope to turn this sunny lot into a community garden, but the tide in the city seems to be turning away from green spaces to mixed use development.
Since the property is currently owned by the city, it pays no taxes, and as with the city, it takes a while for things to eventually get developed. Thankfully, it is not a school.
A quick look at the solicitation it appears the city wants a developer-buyer to create a mixed income and mixed use development, with the residential units being 51% affordable (residents at 80% AMI). Luckily, the city defines AMI (Area Median Income) with 1 person household earning $59,920, a 2 person household at $68,480, a 3 person household $77,040, 4 person $85,600 and so forth. The city wants it to be a LEED building, and there are other requirements that deal with the city.
According to the Department of Housing and Community Development developers have until October (10th or 24th) to submit proposal applications.

Langston School- Vacant forever

The Langston School on the unit block of P St NW has been vacant for-like-ever. This photograph is from 2007. There have been some improvements, like better boarded up windows and doors. According to Wikipedia the school has been vacant sometime after 1997 when it closed and it is on the National Register of Historic places.
At the Bates Area Civic Association (BACA) meeting last night, a representative from Councilman McDuffie's (??) office said DGS had no plans for the building. The BACA president mentioned that the building, which charter schools have first dibs on, is so far gone that it would cost too much for a charter school to try to renovate it and make it functional. Other residents at the meeting pointed out the roof has holes in it, that allow in rain, to water the plants that are growing through the boards. On a slightly hopeful note the BACA president mentioned that Munde Verde, the charter school fixing up the Cook school across the street, might have some interest in the Langston building when they desire to expand their campus. But if that ever happens, that will be many, many years into the future.
In the meantime, DGS cleans up the area around the property and keeps the windows and doors and does its version of 'stabilizing' the property. This doesn't exactly fit the neighborhood's idea of stabilizing the building because it looks like demolition through neglect. 

Vacant Property Response Form: The exemptions

If the city has determined your property to be vacant, and you disagree, you will need to fill out DCRA's Vacant Property Response Form (PDF).
Before we get to the exceptions, the part where one checks "YES, MY BUILDING IS VACANT and I certify that it meets the Vacant Building Maintenance Requirements in D.C. Code 42-3131.12. Please REGISTER MY BUILDING AD VACANT. I will be taxed at the Class 3 rate." And there is a registration fee of $250.00. $250 on top of the higher rate, seems to create a dis-incentive to quickly register property.
Anyway, there are two other options to agreeing a property is vacant. The first is checking the box "NO, MY BUILDING IS OCCUPIED" and two most recent water and any other utility bills. If the building is commercial then add a Certificate of Occupancy. The second box is "MY BUILDING IS EXEMPT" and there are 5 options.
The first option is for buildings under active construction. Instructions read as "List building permit number(s). Permit(s) must have been issued, renewed, or extended within 12 months of the required registration date." The issuing of a permit doesn't always mean work done, but it is a legitimate exemption. Problems arise when work starts, and stops, and starts and stops over a lengthy amount of time. This is frustrating for neighbors, and probably no fun for the developer either.
The second is, "THE OWNER IS ACTIVELY SEEKING TO SELL OR RENT THE BUILDING". This requires, according to the form, a "listing agreement with realty agent contact information AND MRIS or MLS electronic listing." There is nothing saying the price has to be reasonable.
The third is, "THE BUILDING IS THE SUBJECT OF A PROBATE PROCEEDING OF THE TITLE IS THE SUBJECT OF LITIGATION." This requires proof of ownership, and a copy of a Letter of Assignment and court documents showing the case is active. Probate and court cases can take time.
Fourth is, "THE BUILDING IS THE SUBJECT OF A PENDING APPLICATION BEFORE A D.C. DEVELOPMENT BOARD". This requires a copy of a filed application for a hearing with a particular board or commission. This is another process that can take time.
Lastly is, "I AM SEEKING A SPECIAL EXEMPTION FROM THE MAYOR". This requires documentation. I have no idea what this is, but just seeking it seems to be an option, regardless of getting it.
There is nothing on the form as to how long an exemption to the Class 3 rate may continue.

460 Ridge St NW

There is not much to say about 460 Ridge St NW. It is owned by the DC government, I gather. It is a vacant lot. It has a sign and a fence. It is long and thin. It is not in the DC Tax office assessment database, as far as I can tell.
The sign hints it belongs to the DC Department of Housing and Community Development. Or maybe DHCD just puts signs up for properties like this.
I have noticed long vacant skinny lots like this are getting townhomes thrown on them in recent days. DC could turn it over to a developer, or turn it into an alley or make it a skinny community garden. With the grass growing, I gather there is enough light for such a thing.

Note- Apparently around November 26, 2007 there was a  house on this lot that collapsed. There is a Flickr photo of the damage here and here. A blogger Ninjamonkey posted something about the collapse. In 2012 developer Blue Sky Housing LLC applied to do something with the lot and the neighboring property (PDF).

1538 9th St NW

, a photo by In Shaw on Flickr.

For Black History Month I present 1538 9th Street NW, home of Carter G. Woodson, the father of Black History.
As you may notice this and the adjoining building are surrounded by a high chain linked fence for pedestrian safety. It has been like this for awhile. Years really. The historic home and adjoining property are owned by the National Park Service who have plans, but apparently no money to do anything. The plans have been around for years, so long so that original plans included another adjoining property the federal agency did not own and was bought by private citizens, who fixed it up and made it their residence. When the NPS dragged out the plans again to show that they had plans, the owners of the house that was part of the plan were alarmed.
Regardless of a plan or not, this and the next door property are vacant, and have been for years. Let's hope that this will not be featured in DC Vacant Properties' 2015 Black History Month profile.
See also Renew Shaw's 2007 post about 1538 9th St NW, and the National Park Service's failure to rehabilitate this property.