Comments on DC turns blind eye to developer's potential sign infractions - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by Seatoner

Tue, 12 Jul 2011 12:26:21 EDT

I don't see why signs should be banned at that location. Why wouldn't you want to try and advertise to MARC and Amtrak riders? The signs might be in violation of the current rules, but maybe the rules need some common sense updates.

Comment by Susan

Fri, 01 Jul 2011 20:19:32 EDT

What DC should clearly do is ban all signs, as Sao Paulo did!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tonydemarco/sets/72157600075508212/detail/

That looks awesome!!!!

Comment by Geoffrey Hatchard

Fri, 01 Jul 2011 15:24:40 EDT

Stephen Smith: The building is not vacant. It is currently used as a parking garage.

Comment by Stephen Smith

Fri, 01 Jul 2011 15:22:04 EDT

I can see them, from my neighborhood, easily. They are annoying, especially the Carmine's sign. I wish they would go away.

There are a lot of things about living in a city that are annoying and I wish would go away. But alas, that's all part of living in a place with other people – learning to tolerate things like, say, unwanted signs on vacant buildings.

If you really want the sign to go away, pressure your elected officials to ease the redevelopment process so that building can actually be put to productive use, and its owners have a stake in not making it look like shit. But if all you do is try to cover up the flaws with bandaids rather than addressing root causes, you're not going to like how it eventually all turns out.

Comment by elizqueenmama

Fri, 01 Jul 2011 15:15:05 EDT

As an Eckington resident, I see these signs almost daily. @TGEoA and @Stephen Smith, FYI - I can see them, from my neighborhood, easily. They are annoying, especially the Carmine's sign. I wish they would go away.
And YES! to the suggestion that some sort of Beatles mural get put on the building! Whenever I see random tourists, especially those of the appropriate age, standing on the platform at NY Ave, and I'm in the mood for a chat, I point out to them the history of the building. Folks are always really excited to learn that random fact.

Comment by Tina

Fri, 01 Jul 2011 14:27:05 EDT

@Tom -how old was your mom? was she screaming and crying like those teenage girls in the historic photos of Beatles concerts?

Comment by Tom

Fri, 01 Jul 2011 13:59:01 EDT

My mom was at that first Beatles concert there.

When did it stop being called the Washington Colosseum? That's what I'd always thought it was [still] called.

Comment by Dizzy

Fri, 01 Jul 2011 12:37:55 EDT

Alan, I think you mean oligopoly.

Comment by Alan Page

Fri, 01 Jul 2011 10:54:17 EDT

I looked at the list of owners of sign permits at the link Geoff posted and noticed three entities appeared to own all of the permits: Washington Signs, Van Wagner and Thaxton Management. Sounds like an oligarchy to me.

Comment by Capt. Hilts

Fri, 01 Jul 2011 10:48:35 EDT

Dizzy, I think you've got it right. Thanks!

The city has made a ton of money from the VC because of the huge boon to real estate values [and taxes] that it has created.

But, seriously, DC needs to commission on artist to put an image of the Beatles on the side of that building - it gives the building and the area a little cache to tourists travelling the line. Very few locals even know the building's link to the Beatles.

Comment by Alan Page

Fri, 01 Jul 2011 10:46:50 EDT

+1 on Capt Hilts' suggestion that a sign be added telling passerbys that the Uline was the site of The Beatles' first U.S. concert. That is an awesome factoid that would surely help NOMA earn some extra cool points.

Comment by Dizzy

Fri, 01 Jul 2011 10:17:19 EDT

The Verizon Center is privately owned by Leonsis's group, but the land it sits on is still owned by the city IIRC.

Comment by danmac

Fri, 01 Jul 2011 07:04:52 EDT

No the city doesn't own the Verizon Center but you might think it did since it was only a few years ago that they got 50 million from the City to upgrade it.
If Douglas can't afford to build on, pay taxes on or maintain the properties he owns he should be forced to sell some. He is allowed to do demolition by neglect of landmark properties and gets a pass on the blight tax for what reason?

Comment by Capt. Hilts

Thu, 30 Jun 2011 21:58:37 EDT

thedofc:

I believe the Verizon Center is privately owned. Largely by Ted Leonsis or the Pollin family still. Someone help me here. But it's not the city.

Comment by thedofc

Thu, 30 Jun 2011 20:43:22 EDT

What about the Verizon Center, or is that exempt because the city owns it?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2231/1811170681_557854ca68.jpg

Comment by Capt. Hilts

Thu, 30 Jun 2011 19:07:30 EDT

How about we insist they add one that says: "Site of the Beatles' first concert in North America"?

Comment by Stephen Smith

Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:12:37 EDT

Don't we have anything better to worry about than a couple of signs that are only visible from a train? Like, say, the hulking blight that is the manufacturing-only zoned area north of this plot, which DC pols are sitting on till they get the right bribes to upzone it or give it a variance?

If these signs are illegal, then the law is dumb.

Comment by TGEoA

Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:34:37 EDT

Potential sign infractions?

Sheesh.

Comment by Lucre

Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:33:04 EDT

@Dizzy Funny, I feel just the opposite; and at least no one's making money illegally on the graffiti.

That Carmine's sign hurt my brains when I first saw it: "While in DC Don't Leave Without Visiting NYC's Legenday [etc]".
Is it possible to leave while still in DC? While in DC, visit a NYC insitution?

Comment by spookiness

Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:30:20 EDT

Its in the NoMa BID, so why not ask them also.

Comment by Andrew Schmadel

Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:26:21 EDT

Oh, yeah. I completely forgot about the 11th St one. I always assumed that it was allowed as a stipulation for fixing the building beneath it, although that doesn't seem to be actually happening.

Of course, I'd be happy to put up with billboards for a year or two on a historic-but-blighted building such as the schoolhouse on Mass & G NW, if 100% of the revenue was used to stabilize the building, and make it commercially viable for a tenant.

Comment by S.B.

Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:22:17 EDT

Does anyone know the justification for having "Special Sign" permits? It seems like a pretty narrow (lucrative) carve out for a few permit holders.

Comment by Geoffrey Hatchard

Thu, 30 Jun 2011 13:55:21 EDT

Si: 1001 11th Street NW is on the officially sanctioned "Special Signs" list here.

Comment by Paul

Thu, 30 Jun 2011 13:55:20 EDT

@Si - Uline isn't actually vacant. It is leased to a parking company.

Comment by Phil Lepanto

Thu, 30 Jun 2011 13:50:06 EDT

Given the size and scope of the Douglas Jemal/Norman Jemal enterprise, it seems reasonable to ask questions about preferential treatment. But, let's face it, the answer is more likely to be "enforcement issues." Time and again, we see District agencies keeping their blinders on so they don't have to bother with the difficulties of actually getting out in the community and enforcing the rules.

Comment by Si Kailian

Thu, 30 Jun 2011 13:35:20 EDT

Supposedly advertising is not allowed on vacant property either. 1001 11th st NW (corner of 11th & K) is just egregious. that one must take in 15k a week while the historic mansion it covers rots away.

Comment by Dizzy

Thu, 30 Jun 2011 13:29:32 EDT

@ontarioroader

Per the Anti-Graffiti Amendment Act of 2000:

Whenever any building, sign, or other structure, or premises within the District are determined by the Mayor to have become a nuisance because of graffiti and the property owner fails to accept the Mayor's graffiti removal services after the Mayor has attempted in good faith to obtain consent and a waiver of liability from the owner for such services, the Mayor may serve the owner of the building, sign, or other structure, or premises a notice of nuisance abatement in writing...

Upon the owner's failure to remove the graffiti, file a waiver of liability consenting to receive, without charge, the Mayor's graffiti removal services, or submit to the Mayor a written request for a hearing or an adjudication by mail to dispute the Mayor's determination that the property identified in the notice has become a nuisance because of graffiti, either by mail, courier, or in person, within 60 days of the date of the personal delivery, certified mailing, or attachment to a sign of the notice, the Mayor, or the Mayor's agents or contractors, may enter or access the property specified in the notice and abate the nuisance by removing or concealing the graffiti.

Would be good to know if this option has ever been pursued.

I bring this up only because I find such things to be far more visually offensive than a FroZenYo placard.

Comment by Andrew Schmadel

Thu, 30 Jun 2011 13:26:31 EDT

Oh, and what about the *actual* billboards right next to the Uline? Surely those must be illegal...

Comment by Andrew Schmadel

Thu, 30 Jun 2011 13:25:52 EDT

Is Douglas Development actually losing money, or are they just skirting taxes?

If they can't pay their taxes, I see no reason why the city should not force Jemal into Chapter 7 or 11, or failing that, throw him in prison until he can come up with the money to pay the city what he owes.

Tax evasion is tax evasion. I don't get why Jemal is evidently exempt from those laws...

Comment by ontarioroader

Thu, 30 Jun 2011 13:15:24 EDT

@Dizzy

It would probably be up to the property owner, but the first amendment covers the content of the graffiti, like it or not.

Comment by Dizzy

Thu, 30 Jun 2011 13:10:33 EDT

Any word on the legality of the FUCK THE POLICE fresco that Red Line riders of all ages are treated to daily?