Comments on How the city bought a homeless vet a house - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by Geoffrey Hatchard

Sun, 25 Sep 2011 11:02:46 EDT

The shame is that there are hundreds of properties around the city that could be housing for people, yet the city does precious little (in my opinion) to get them back into being livable housing. Sure, some vacant housing has been brought back into use by being heavily taxed, but the city has been haphazard in applying the rules.

Comment by John Muller

Tue, 20 Sep 2011 09:30:50 EDT

More info about 2228 MLK...

http://dcra.dc.gov/DC/DCRA/Publication%20Files/DCRA/BCIB/BCIB%20Property%20List/Current%20BCIB%20Properties%20Sept%202011.pdf
BCIB and vacant/blighted

http://dcra.dc.gov/DC/DCRA/Publication%20Files/DCRA/VacantProperties/May2011class4.pdf

Comment by Bill

Mon, 19 Sep 2011 21:16:12 EDT

Kelo it.

Comment by HogWash

Mon, 19 Sep 2011 17:05:26 EDT

The owners should have been jailed for allowing those properties to look as they did. All three have rather nice front yardage but they looked absolutely HORRIBLE!!!!

They need to raze all three and start from scratch. It will be a big win for anyone who builds a home there because the location is excellente!!!

Comment by Bossi

Mon, 19 Sep 2011 15:15:34 EDT

@andrew-

The only change is that the city bought the property 14 months ago & still hasn't made any significant changes.

I don't think the article is trying to assert any particular position; my take on it was that it's just an informational story.

Comment by andrew

Mon, 19 Sep 2011 15:11:46 EDT

...and that wasn't the case already, for the past 30 years? What changed?

Comment by Bossi

Mon, 19 Sep 2011 13:43:56 EDT

@andrew-

The city didn't literally by the house for him; rather they bought they house & didn't fully barricade it to prevent him from continuing to live in it... so for all intents & purposes, they bought the house and still let it be possible for Mr. Jackson to remain.

Comment by andrew

Mon, 19 Sep 2011 12:53:11 EDT

In neglecting the properties, DHCD engendered Jackson's squatting. In its neglect, the city effectively "bought" Jackson the house he was occupying unlawfully.

Huh? How does that work?

Has anybody ruled that Jackson is in adverse possesion of 2228 MLK Ave?

I feel like this story is missing a second half or something? You just gave us a lot of information, and didn't form any sort of thesis or conclusion from it (or, you did, but it was never really explained). How was the house bought for Jackson? Is the city going to step in, and help him obtain a safe and proper residence, or is he simply going to be thrown back out onto the street?

Comment by Cassidy

Mon, 19 Sep 2011 11:58:08 EDT

Good article! It's amazing how long a city -- not just DC -- can let a private owner leave a vacant property in dismal condition. The fact that the Kushner's did nothing and then profited off of it is a pretty shameful tale.

Comment by monkeyrotica

Mon, 19 Sep 2011 11:51:13 EDT

Jemal squats on vacant properties for DECADES, yet he's lauded as a financial genius and the savior of downtown.