Comments on 100-year old Anacostia abandominium houses crack addict - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by H Street Landlord

Sat, 26 May 2012 00:41:51 EDT

Interesting, thought provoking post.

One thing I think you should consider, after working in the mental health and substance abuse field for seven and a half years, is the use of person-first language. Instead of labeling someone a crack addict, the language would be, "person suffering from crack cocaine dependence." This emphasizes that they are a human being with goals and strengths, and while they are definitely suffering from their mental health problems or addictions, that alone does not define them.

It's great to see such a thorough series on Historic Anacostia looking at so many different aspects of life there.

Comment by StringsAttached

Fri, 25 May 2012 19:50:41 EDT

Wow, definitely brave for entering that home. I hope you scouted it out first to know nobody was in there. Great reporting though.

Comment by oboe

Fri, 25 May 2012 09:27:40 EDT

Once DC decides to move against a nuisance property, it has plenty of ways to force repair.

True, but often times it's a question of political will. Every once in a blue moon, DC gets aggressive about adding properties to the "nuisance" list, and every time there's significant pushback from residents. I think speculators tend to exploit that.

Comment by Tom Coumaris

Thu, 24 May 2012 23:01:58 EDT

oboe- State of the Union was always boarded up. When we had an epidemic of boarded-up houses in DC in the 80's we had the city concrete block up abandoned buildings all around Logan Circle. The city billed the owners and placed a lien. I'm sure the law is still the same.

Of course if someone claiming to be a legal owner is living there it's tougher, but the city can still go against it as a nuisance to either be repaired and made safe by a owner or the city will do so. If you remember the fire at the Brizill house story, the city had twice forced repairs. Also in Dupont we had the house at 16th and T that was "demolition by neglect" where the city forced the owner to either bring it up to code or the city would and charge the owner.

Once DC decides to move against a nuisance property, it has plenty of ways to force repair.

Comment by William

Thu, 24 May 2012 22:56:22 EDT

DC does have such a board, but no one on it seems to want to make the hard decisions:

http://dcra.dc.gov/DC/DCRA/Inspections/Housing+Code+Inspections/Board+of+Condemnation

Comment by michiganman

Thu, 24 May 2012 17:19:54 EDT

When I lived in Lansing MI, a city with a big (for a city its size) abandoned house problem, the city had a "make safe or demolish" law in which inspectors could recommend that a city board order that a seemingly abandoned property either be brought up to code within so many days or it would be demolished by the city (with costs and fees charged to the owner or record).

Maybe DC needs something like that. Get aggressive.

Comment by oboe

Thu, 24 May 2012 16:41:26 EDT

The city can, and has hundreds of times, board or even brick up the windows and doors securely and charge the owner or lien the property for the work to make it secure against trespass.

I'd refer you to http://bit.ly/KuFgJb

Mostly, rather than individual owners, Pemberton is after the repeat offenders who buy up properties all over and try to hide from the tax. But it's actually pretty rare that someone actually pays the full blight tax, rather than fixes up their property or sells it. Pemberton remembers the owner of 1357 U Street NW, the old State of the Union building, whose owner just paid through the nose year after year. “He was so rich, it didn’t even matter," Pemberton says. “I wouldn’t expect anyone to pay it. It’s a little ridiculous.”

Generally speaking, unless you're a speculator, the city is incredibly lenient about dilapidated properties and tax liens. Obviously they're going to err on the side of not throwing people out on the street.

Comment by Jim T

Thu, 24 May 2012 15:51:44 EDT

Good article. Mr. Thompson's son-in-law may well be the rightful owner. But 50 years after the Great Society, it's easier to fix abandonned buildings than abandonned people, though at some level the apparent owner may be as morally entitled to help as those with underwater mortgages.

Comment by Tom Coumaris

Thu, 24 May 2012 14:51:08 EDT

The city can, and has hundreds of times, board or even brick up the windows and doors securely and charge the owner or lien the property for the work to make it secure against trespass.

Vacant houses which are easily entered are safety concerns, not just for crime, but fire hazards and enticements for children to play in.

Comment by Political Observer

Thu, 24 May 2012 14:43:16 EDT

@oboe When was there a public outcry about the city dealing with these nuisances? When has the city tried to deal with these nuisances?

There is a way to deal with these properties and it's called eminent domain.

Comment by oboe

Thu, 24 May 2012 14:28:26 EDT

What's more baffling is that the DC government doesn't even appear to have made an attempt to determine the ownership of this property after its owners failed to pay taxes year after year.

Given the sheer number of properties like this, and the amount of public outcry whenever the city tries to crack down on abandoned and dilapidated houses, I don't think it's all that baffling.

Comment by grumpy

Thu, 24 May 2012 14:11:05 EDT

This occassional series of posts on "abandominiums" is fantastic. I think it's come up on GGW before so my apologies, but does DC have anything like O'Malley's program in Baltimore (called Project 5000?) to gain control of abandoned properties and redevelop them for productive use? Among other things I believe they targeted properties where there were legal/ownership issues that had to be adjudicated before the city (or other investor) could take them over.

Comment by Tom A.

Thu, 24 May 2012 13:48:26 EDT

Impressive work, John! I'm glad we're finally not just accepting the squalor that affects so many of our neighborhoods, especially "across the river."

But be careful out there!

Comment by IsoTopor

Thu, 24 May 2012 13:47:04 EDT

" 'Well, yeah, that and the city doesn't own the place.'

That's not quite true if nobody's paying the property taxes."

It is quite true if a private party is listed as the property's owner in the city land records, back taxes or not. Hope the author doesn't get tagged for trespassing. Eye-opening look into another world for sure though.

Comment by andrew

Thu, 24 May 2012 13:35:16 EDT

Well, yeah, that and the city doesn't own the place.

That's not quite true if nobody's paying the property taxes.

If the structure's been classified as blighted, (at current rates), the taxes owed on the property will exceed the property's value within 10 years, and the city then has a clear-cut case to seize the property and sell it.

What's more baffling is that the DC government doesn't even appear to have made an attempt to determine the ownership of this property after its owners failed to pay taxes year after year.

Is there really no procedure to deal with properties that have been obviously abandoned and have no clear owner?

Comment by oboe

Thu, 24 May 2012 12:20:59 EDT

"They fix these places up and then there'd be jobs for everyone from the community who can work with their hands. It could create some small businesses. Yeah, but they don't want to do that, you see, because it would save the neighborhood. But, nope, too much like right."

Well, yeah, that and the city doesn't own the place.