Comments on Look inside a historic Columbia Heights �abandominium" - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by John Muller

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 20:10:06 EDT

Farah: Thanks for your comment. My friend and I waited outside of the buildings for a while and didn't see any signs of the two families that you say are still living in either buildings B or C, except for the trash/recycling bins outside of Building C - which we weren't sure if that was hard evidence of folks living there since they were empty. The electronic call boxes on all of the buildings were without power and did not work so we couldn't call up. We banged/knocked on the doors for Buildings B & C to no answer. I found your information on the web and will reach out unless you reach out to me first at 202.236.3413 / jmuller@ggwash.org. Look forward to it.

Comment by Farah Fosse

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 19:57:26 EDT

I have been working as an organizer with the remaining 4 families at this building for the past couple years. (Unfortunately, I did not get involved until most residents had been pushed out by Joe Kisha.) We successfully organized to get DHCD to put pressure on Kisha to sell the buildings so that tenants could exercise their rights under DC's tenant purchase laws.

The residents did in fact exercise their rights under the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA). Through TOPA they selected a new purchaser and negotiated a deal which will preserve 20% of the building as affordable housing and will include a full renovation of the building in compliance with the historic codes. The building is currently undergoing this rehab which is why you found it gutted. 2 of the families decided to move after the sale and took a generous relocation packages because they did not want to live through the renovations and continue to live in the poor conditions. 2 of the families decided to stay and continue to live in the property (not in building A). They have a contract for affordable rents and renovations equal to those in all of the other units.

Unfortunately, due cuts to the Housing Production Trust Fund the tenants could not purchase themselves or keep this building 100% affordable housing. So, while the deal worked for the remaining residents it is a significant loss of subsidized (through the DHCD ground lease) affordable housing in Columbia Heights.

This story was clearly done of the fly. It would not have taken much work to find out the buildings continue to be occupied. And it's hugely irresponsible to suggest that people use the buildings for illicit activities. These buildings are HOME for the remaining residents.

Some of the 4 families who remained at the building are family of Donte and everyone remembers him and his family as do others in the neighborhood. This could be a very interesting story about the neighborhood and real people who have first hand experience of Columbia Heights over the last few decades. The story would be well served if you interviewed the families who continue to reside at the ABC buildings (the Warner).

Comment by Bonnie

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 19:07:35 EDT

With a landlord that seems to be a classic slumlord, why did the District stand by and allow this kind of waste? Even if he were fighting with the tenants on the rent control issue, the building looked like a sty because the DC government stood by, even while giving lots of soft money to the landlord. Did DC get a share of the profits or just their original principal back? or even that?

Comment by SwP

Thu, 29 Mar 2012 22:44:16 EDT

He noticed an abandoned place and he and a friend checked it out. Was it open? Yes
is it owned by someone else ? Yes
However, if the owner cared about his or her property they would have had a violators trespassing sign. Its a great story [deleted for violating the comment policy]. And in addition , nothing was stolen because their isn't anything to steal. the point that the author was making was basically about developers who promise the DC government the world in order to get grant money and then they fall short, the projects are abandoned and money is missing

Comment by W Jordan

Thu, 29 Mar 2012 17:03:42 EDT

Donte's death speaks not only to a tragic crime but the under belly of gentrification and politics in the Ward. At the time the goal of real estate interests and the Council Member was to push out the tenants and to force the owner to sale. Although this was a hotspot in need of sustained police attention, MPD under pressure from CM Graham moved the HotSpot designation from this area to another to shift police protection from the Warner to a recently opened condo building. After police raided the Warner they shift operations to the new condo, this is when Donte was shot and killed as well as MPD staged a show of force parade up and down U St. and 18th St.

The pattern at the time was to neglect such properties/areas use fines and enforcement actions to force out the tenants, force the onwers to sale to a friend of the Council Member under nuisance property laws.

This would be a very good story to tell, if we have the courage to tell the entire story. This property and many others and the people they housed have many stories to tell.

Comment by John Muller

Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:34:43 EDT

@JasonfromStPaul

I have some information on Donte Manning's tragic case that should be published next week. If you are interested in speaking please give me a call at 202.236.3413 or email at jmuller@ggwash.org.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Thanks for your comment.

Comment by JasonfromStPaul

Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:16:48 EDT

This shooting seven years ago is undoubtedly the tragic shooting of 9 year old Dante Manning who lived in the Warner Apartment building. I lived on that corner back then and it was terrible. The last I heard, there was a huge reward for anyone who had information leading to an arrest, but there were still no leads. I have wondered for years whether or not there had been any progress in the case. I wonder if the author of this article has any updates on this?

Comment by SwtP

Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:47:47 EDT

[Deleted for violating the comment policy.] He noticed an abandoned place and he and a friend checked it out. Was it open? Yes
is it owned by someone else ? Yes
However, if the owner cared about his or her property they would have had a violaters trespassing sign. Its a great story [deleted for violating the comment policy]. And in addition , nothing was stolen because their isn't anything to steal. the point that the author was making was basically about developers who promise the DC government the world in order to get grant money and then they fall short, the projects are abandoned and money is missing >>>>>> Duh!

Comment by John Muller

Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:28:42 EDT

@Beatbox

I was on the 2600 block of 13th Street NW last Saturday evening to ask people about a shooting that happened on that street seven years previous. My friend was with me just in case it got a little tense. We soon observed that the Warner was vacant. He saw the door to Building A was unlocked. We went in.

In previous posts for GGW as well as writing for other publications from the Washington Times to Capital Community News to others I have often interviewed/quoted individuals where, at their request, I have used an alias or other name. For example, at The Washington Times I wrote a story about a former member of Mara Salvatrucha. For many reasons, I did not use his real name, instead, it was "Jerry" in the story.

For this story, my friend whose real name is not "Rickey" asked that I use an alias for many reasons. Our intention that night was to gather information about a young man's life who has been largely forgotten. It was not to take a tour of one of the places of Rickey's old stomping grounds.

We entered at our own risk.

Comment by JohnnyDC

Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:20:39 EDT

[This comment has been deleted for violating the comment policy.]

Comment by beatbox

Wed, 28 Mar 2012 13:26:47 EDT

Let me guess, "Ricky is your fictional "Lazlo".

Comment by beatbox

Wed, 28 Mar 2012 13:24:05 EDT

It is not trespassing just because the door is unlocked? How about the "No Trespassing" sign?

If you tripped and broke a leg you would sue the owner.

Comment by HogWash

Wed, 28 Mar 2012 10:33:05 EDT

John this really is a super article and series!

Comment by Hallow Tip Mindset

Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:10:04 EDT

At Arl Fan: The owner should know now.

I live around the corner and have no problem with this story or the methods.

14th&Euclid

Comment by MrTinDC

Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:49:21 EDT

This is what gets called out on the Prince of Petworth Blog as a "horse's ass award winner." THey should just sell it to a developer and turn it into condominiums or apartments already.

Comment by Arl Fan

Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:48:45 EDT

This is no Breaking and Entering or Trespassing if the door is wide open, unlocked.

This is what must be parody. You don't just go walking through neighborhoods checking all the doors to see if they're unlocked and then treat yourself and a friend to a tour if you happen to find one that is, right?

It makes a great story. But let's not suggest that it wouldn't have been better to contact the owner, at least to say "hey, did you know the building is unlocked and a haven for criminal activity."

Comment by Lance

Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:36:39 EDT

@Jae, Maybe you missed the part in the story where it says the building recently sold for over $5M? It can take years for a developer to get to the point where they are ready to actually begin working at the site itself. (I.e., there're designs to be done, financing and backers to be obtained and finally permits to be had. Those permits alone can take months if not years for a project of this size.) It's not that the building is abandoned ... no more than the farmer's field is abandoned during the winter when it is between crops. It's between residents ... as it gets prepared to be redeveloped.

Still, I find it interesting that the author would characterize this period of its rehabilitation as 'abandoned'. There's probably more activity going on with regards to this building's future now than there's been in decades. That's hardly a sign of an abandoned building.

Comment by Hallow Tip Mindset

Wed, 28 Mar 2012 07:17:16 EDT

To Sluggo and Lance: This is no Breaking and Entering or Trespassing if the door is wide open, unlocked. It's better this story tells it then somebody gets thrown off the roof or somebody ignite the place. If door is locked there's no story. And Pelecanos is make believe. That's a significant difference. When they start screening that 20% to move in I'm first on the list.

14th&Euclid

Comment by Sluggo

Wed, 28 Mar 2012 06:58:49 EDT

This post was interesting, but made me uncomfortable for two reasons -- the fact that it was based on a break-in (which among other things deprived the reader of a chance to hear the owner's perspective); plus the observations of "Rickey," which don't accomplish anything beyond making the story feel like a cheap Pelecanos knock-off.

Comment by jae

Wed, 28 Mar 2012 05:50:47 EDT

"Would a farmer's field in wintertime similarly be viewed as abandoned?"
There is no way that Lance isn't some insane for of performance art. I don't know how else to explain quotes like that.

Comment by Ghosts of DC

Tue, 27 Mar 2012 23:28:55 EDT

This is a fascinating and well-written post John. You inspire me to do a little more guerilla research. So adventurous. I do hope the building gets a second life with some investment.

Comment by Lance

Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:59:08 EDT

Great piece ... but shouldn't you have gotten the owners' permission to enter? I mean you could have encountered 'who knows what' in terms of security measures. (I'm thinking guard dogs for instance.) Also, doesn't publishing this story open you up to trespassing charges?

The other benefit of actually getting the owners' permission to be on their property would have been the opportunity talking to them would have brought you in terms of getting 'the rest of the story' as for what is planned here.

I do find it interesting though how in your viewpoint 'uninhabited' equals 'abandoned'. Would a farmer's field in wintertime similarly be viewed as abandoned?

Comment by Dave Murphy

Tue, 27 Mar 2012 20:49:27 EDT

Another fascinating piece, John. That is an absolutely gorgeous building, and in such a nice neighborhood. I hope this piece helps something positive happen to it.

Comment by renegade09

Tue, 27 Mar 2012 19:00:40 EDT

great article...I hope this building gets the owners and tenants it deserves. I guess I'm one of the 'new people' who is making this building 'too hot to get high in'!

Comment by Ben Ross

Tue, 27 Mar 2012 18:45:13 EDT

This is certainly a problem for the neighborhood, but you really can't call a building that someone just paid $5 million for "abandoned."

This belongs more in the category of negligent landlords than abandoned buildings.

Comment by Fischy (Ed F.)

Tue, 27 Mar 2012 16:49:53 EDT

Another find in what's becoming a remarkable series. It's stunningly beautiful facade, so it's tragic to see the utter shambles inside. With a $5 mil investment, I have to think there will be considerable work to follow.

Comment by Interested reader

Tue, 27 Mar 2012 16:38:49 EDT

Will this be a reoccurring series? I'd like to give a couple places for you to look into.