Ad

Friday, May 11, 2012

CP: A Gas Station Grows Near H Street

1400MD 001
Photo provided by the creators of the Shell No website

Housing Complex has the latest on that pesky gas station coming to 14th & Maryland. The developer has sought for sometime to build a gas station at that location (which was previously a used car lot). The community has pushed back hard against the idea, even launching a major campaign against it in 2008. The developers have not been the best of neighbors over the past few years, freely allowing a very noticeable homeless encampment to develop.

Recently, however, the developers obtained permits to build their station (or actually to renovate what is apparently an existing one) on that site. It may not be the most exciting use of the site, but it looks like we're stuck with it.

Some past coverage and an image from the old Shell No campaign after the jump
 
production.sign.shell.no
Image provided by the creators of the Shell No website

Considering the Shell (9/3/08)
More on the Shell Station (12/18/08)

101 comments:

dick cheney said...

Actually it would be nice to have a gas station in the area considering that all gas stations within the district are slowly disappearing. SE/SW for example.

Mike said...

So, this is the first I'd head of this, and I just don't get it. As a driver, it doesn't strike me as a brilliant place to put a gas station. Kinda awkward to get in and out, very close to competition, and a lot of opportunity cost--4 gas pumps vs 80 condos across the street. I'd be very grateful if someone here understands the motivation and would like to explain. I'm not strictly in favor or opposed, I'll pick a side once I'm less perplexed.

Anonymous said...

While not the nicest stations in the world, there are already two stations in the area at 14th and Florida and 6th and Florida, plus others down Bladensburg Rd. Seems like there would be better uses for this space.

oboe said...

While not the nicest stations in the world, there are already two stations in the area at 14th and Florida and 6th and Florida, plus others down Bladensburg Rd. Seems like there would be better uses for this space.

While that may be true, progressives are always going on about how we want our neighborhood to be more "walkable". Those gas stations are too far away to walk to.

Anonymous said...

New to this part of the Hill. I don't really understand the logistics of locating a gas station at this location. For starters, the lot is locked in on the western side by the one-way 14th St. Then there is Maryland Ave. which has a median in the center of the street. Could become cluttered as people turn into Checkers.

Brian Wilson said...

Wouldn't a Wawa be nice?

Anonymous said...

Wawa FTW!

kfed said...

What is the point of a walkable gas station besides cigarettes? And filling up molotov cocktails of course.

Anonymous said...

I like my molotov's with Dolin vermouth and four olives.

Anonymous said...

It's a shame, that has some really great outdoor space and I was looking forward to seeing what someone creative was going to put in there.

Part of me would really like to see it forced out of business, if built, from no one using it. I can't see that happening, but there are a bunch of gas stations around and I have no need for one at this location.

Anonymous said...

absolutely terrible. They won't get a penny of my gas purchases. I'll go to one at 14&Florida or Bladensburg and Morse. F*** these people. They should be ashamed.

H. Lamarr said...

all of the creative energy on H went into building low-end theme bars.

What, exactly, is so "terrible" about a gas station at that location? Sure, it might not be the most profitable use of the land from a logistical/business perspective, and I get that you lot would prefer for there to be some organic/fair-trade/craft-something or other shop instead, but, apart from offending your personal sensibilities, what makes this business venture some sort of moral abomination such that the owners should be "ashamed" and "F***[ed]"?

I live two blocks directly to the west, and will buy every drop of my gas there, and, hopefully, some chicken wings as well. Not because I need that much gas, but because I like chicken and I really like irritating hipster/yuppie NIMBY sideliners.

Plus, it'll give you all something tangible to look at and complain to one another over while you're sipping overpriced drinks at the Argonaut. We all win!

Me said...

Does anyone have any plans/renderings for what they're going to be building there? I remember seeing plans back in '08, but those would've had to have been changed (largely due to the Shell No! campaign), right?

...just curious to see what I'll be standing in front of every morning while waiting for the X8.

Anonymous said...

I hope it's a shell or a Sunoco. This is close enough for me to get gas there, but far enough away so I don't have to see it from my house. Right on!

Me said...

I guess I should've checked the source link.

My apologies for the knee-jerk comment/post.

Anonymous said...

"While that may be true, progressives are always going on about how we want our neighborhood to be more "walkable". Those gas stations are too far away to walk to."

You think thats funny huh? Doncha? Ever had a bike that needed air, and you're in NoVa, walking it down unwalkable streets to get to the nearest (too far) gas station with an air pump?


ACyclistInTheSuburbs

poo said...

they'll get all those people leaving dc via MD AVE. they'll likely stop there for gas before hitting the stations on bladensburg.

they're going to be ROLLING in dough.

Anonymous said...

Soon, every square inch of DC will be occupied by a Joe Mamo-owned gas station.

Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

Chris said...

poo: all those people leaving DC via Maryland Avenue will be physically unable to turn into the gas station, since 14th Street is one-way in the opposite direction and since the outbound lanes of Maryland are separated from the gas station by a concrete divider with no cuts.

Anonymous said...

It's not difficult to cut through those dividers.

Me said...

Chris:

There is actually a cut there right now (used by many cars to cut through the Checkers lot onto G). That's supposed to be closed off, but the plan over on the City Paper article shows it still open.

I'd like to hear from someone what is actually going on there.

On the one hand, closing it would be great to prevent both the aforementioned cut-throughs at Checkers and to help congestion created by people left-turning into the gas station, but on the other it will lead to even more traffic on G St.

In my (not especially-qualified) mind, the whole 14th/Maryland/G intersection needs to be fixed.

Anonymous said...

Ouch, I feel for those homebuyers who recently snapped up houses opposite the checkers. Now they'll have a view of the checkers AND a gas station, all for about $600,000.

Also, isn't this going to look like crap across from the new condo development going in?

Anonymous said...

glad i live on the west side.
walmart. what? what?

Anonymous said...

If this gets built, DAG needs to fill the median. The District Department of Transportation issued a letter that states, due to safety concerns presented by queuing traffic, the median must be filled in. The Board of Zoning Adjustment incorporated DDOT's letter into an order that was handed down regarding the construction on 1400 Maryland.

If DAG doesn't fill the median, they are putting our community's safety at risk.

Anonymous said...

h. lamarr

I'd love to have a Cheesecake Factory here, so don't put me in the organic free trade camp.

And those things that are a different color than the other words...they are called "links" and you can actually do what's called "clicking" of them to see why people are opposed to this gas station.

Here are some of the highlights:

* the opposition asserts this violated some public space regulations, which if true and not addressed in this latest design should stop the project right there

* There are 2 gas stations within 800 feet of this one (close enough for a biker without air to even have the stamina left to get to) and 6 more within one mile

* It doesn't fit into the H Street Revitalization plan to reduce automotive oriented businesses

* They also asserted in a letter that it violates a DC Policy which calls for restricting the number of self-service gas stations and mini marts, which if true should stop it right there

They also have some stuff in there about violating public space usage, paving over public space, putting permanent signage where there is only supposed to be temporary, these guys already haven't been "good neighbors", on and on, etc.

Inbound traffic will be able to access it, but it's got to be bad for outbound traffic to get to and get out of and back onto Maryland, where it's already bad enough.

You're two blocks away and can't find chicken wings? Looks like they are 25-cents on Monday at Argonaut, I'm guessing Safeway has some if you want to walk another couple blocks (you may not), there should be a Popeyes closer than this location if you are two blocks west, and I'm sure there are lots of other ways to get your chicken.

I have to agree with the opposition, this doesn't provide a much needed service and...you probably guessed by now...I'm not a fan.

Dave B said...

what is the "public space" in reference to?

Anonymous said...

I live two blocks directly to the west, and will buy every drop of my gas there, and, hopefully, some chicken wings as well. Not because I need that much gas, but because I like chicken and I really like irritating hipster/yuppie NIMBY sideliners.

And I refuse to wipe my ass because my roommate goes on more dates than me, and doesn't like the smell of poo.

Isn't it fun to live one's life around the organizing principle of irritating those you're jealous of?

Anonymous said...

"the opposition asserts this violated some public space regulations, which if true and not addressed in this latest design should stop the project right there."

Indeed, provided the opposition can come up with something more than "assertions."

"There are 2 gas stations within 800 feet of this one (close enough for a biker without air to even have the stamina left to get to) and 6 more within one mile."

And there's a crappy themed bar every 50 feet. Some people like crappy bars. Me, I like gas stations.

"It doesn't fit into the H Street Revitalization plan to reduce automotive oriented businesses."

Does the plan extend to Maryland Ave.? More importantly, does the plan have the force and effect of law?

"They also asserted in a letter that it violates a DC Policy which calls for restricting the number of self-service gas stations and mini marts, which if true should stop it right there."

Does this supposed policy trump laws and regulations that otherwise control in this context?

"They also have some stuff in there about violating public space usage, paving over public space, putting permanent signage where there is only supposed to be temporary, these guys already haven't been "good neighbors", on and on, etc."

Is there any indication that this is occurring at this time? Moreover, is this not private property, and, if so, are these public space requirements applicable?

"Inbound traffic will be able to access it, but it's got to be bad for outbound traffic to get to and get out of and back onto Maryland, where it's already bad enough."

Hard to say until it's in place. Even if that proves to be the case, bad ideas are not necessarily morally culpable, let alone illegal, ones.

"You're two blocks away and can't find chicken wings? Looks like they are 25-cents on Monday at Argonaut, I'm guessing Safeway has some if you want to walk another couple blocks (you may not), there should be a Popeyes closer than this location if you are two blocks west, and I'm sure there are lots of other ways to get your chicken."

Gas station chicken = best chicken. Even better than 7-11.

Anonymous said...

From some of the documents,this appears to be the public space:

3. Between the property’s southern property line and Maryland Avenue, is an approximately
50-foot wide swath of public space.

4. Between the property’s western property line and 14th Street, is an approximately 35-foot
wide swath of public space.

5. The total area of public space bordering the property is approximately 7,240 square feet,
not including the sidewalks, which are also in public space.

It is also noted:

12. The entire property, and most of the adjoining public space, is paved over, with no
significant area of greenery.

14. There are no other gasoline service stations within the boundaries of ANC 6A.

Now that was from 2009. But there is also a letter from the ANC January 13, 2012 which opposes a public access permit being granted based mainly on:

public safety concerns, especially with the bus stop there

what appears to be the elimination of a few parking spaces so tanker trucks can have a proper turning radius

the applicant being "an extremely poor steward of public space at this site"

I'd hate to be the guy trying to put in a business with all this opposition. Unless the ANC has recanted their view, this demonstrates to me the irrelevance of ANC opinions in this city.

Trinidaddy said...

h. lamarr - make sure you throw those chicken bones on the ground after you're done eating them. That will really mess with the NIMBYs and yuppies.

You sound like a great neighbor. Really.

Anonymous said...

@ anon 3:04

Lots of good questions. I'm guessing you don't have those answers, though, or you would have put them there.

I would like to see them answered, wouldn't you? And they should be instead of just assuming everything is going to be okay.

Anonymous said...

@3:28 - I'd submit that the onus is on the people trying to prevent the project to make their case substantively and affirmatively, as opposed to generalized appeals to amorphous policies and plans.

oboe said...

We may not be able to stop them from building a gas station, but if they continue trying to steamroll the community, we can make them sorry they ever opened one.

The icing on the cake is that it will create a rallying point to bring neighbors together--and it will alienate curmudgeonly misanthropes like Mr Lamarr.

Double win!

Anonymous said...

Might as well go back to posting with your user name Robby.. you're just as annoying when posting anonymously.

thoughful said...

Anonymous @3:37 This business has to acquire licenses to operate their business in DC, so the onus is actually on the business owner to prove he/she is in compliance with the law and/or applicable regulations in order to legally operate a business in that location, not on an anonymous internet poster.

thoughtful said...

is or will be in compliance.

future tense above was implied.

Anonymous said...

@3:37

These are blog comments and a summary of what has already been said for those who don't want to read the available information first hand. If you want to see why the ANC says, in detail, why they oppose it, you can read it for yourself. They list specific requirements that haven't been met, at least as of their January letter.

Anonymous said...

I just want to clarify that I do NOT crave THIS gas station, just that having a gas station in walking distance can actually be worthwhile.

ACyclistInTheSuburbs

Anonymous said...

that's just it, though -- it seems to me that the owners of this property have made at least that initial showing by having obtained permits from the city.

There may very well be arguments that the approval was incorrectly given, etc., but the commenters on this blog are not providing any such evidence. Instead, their complaints effectively center on just not liking the idea of a gas station in that spot, and lamenting the apparent impotence of the ANC.

That's not action, that's just sniping. If there are legal requirements that haven't been met, get off the couch and fight it. Otherwise, sit back and hope they have a slushee machine.

oboe said...

I just want to clarify that I do NOT crave THIS gas station, just that having a gas station in walking distance can actually be worthwhile.

A cyclist who doesn't carry a pump is not much of a cyclist.

http://bit.ly/M4FFUT

:)

Anonymous said...

Mixed opinions on this one.

I personally got no use for a gas station here, and it'd be great to see a restaurant and outdoor dining.

But it's not my property.

I'm sortof a firm believer in private property rights, and not sure we have a right to tell this guy we don't like what he's proposing, particularly since this was a gas station for pretty much forever and it was zoned for a gas station when he bought it (I assume).

oboe said...

Instead, their complaints effectively center on just not liking the idea of a gas station in that spot, and lamenting the apparent impotence of the ANC.

You must have somehow missed the multiple posts in which a list of objections (also raised by the ANC) were enumerated.

In any case, that's a shitty place for a gas station: it'll add all sorts of confusing auto traffic turning from 14th, from Maryland, from Checkers, etc, etc...

It'll basically make that area look even more like a car-centric no-mans-land like the intersection of NY Avenue and Bladensburg Road.

So, yes, it looks like the owners are in violation of a bunch of different existing agreements, codes, and laws, and no, we don't want a gas station there.

So the vast majority of local residents are going to do everything they can to either keep it from opening, or if it does open, mitigating its negative impact as much as possible.

Now granted, there are people who live in DC and even in the neighborhood who think it's desirable that the area around H Street comes to look more like Bladensburg Road, rather than Bladensburg Road coming to look more like H Street, but fortunately they're small in numbers, and completely out of the mainstream of local political opinion.

oboe said...

I'm sortof a firm believer in private property rights, and not sure we have a right to tell this guy we don't like what he's proposing, particularly since this was a gas station for pretty much forever and it was zoned for a gas station when he bought it (I assume).

Neighboring voters may not have the legal right to stop him from using his property as a gas station (in which case, them's the breaks), but we do have a right, and an obligation, to ensure he's not using a square millimeter of public space to do so, and that he's given absolutely no infrastructure support (curb cuts, median cuts, etc...)

Anonymous said...

a list of objections is a list of objections, and they don't obtain even a veneer of legal substance merely by being spouted by an ANC that possesses no actual authority to enforce them.

Can you point to legally enforceable agreements, laws, and codes that are being violated? The mewlings of the ANC might make you feel good, but they aren't law.

Unless and until you identify and act upon discrete violations of law, you're pissing into the wind.

oboe said...

More info on the question of public versus private property in the land in question:

http://www.shell-no.com/ourcase.php

Note the graphic showing the small, isolated DAG parcel in a sea of public space. My guess is that--in the absence of public oversight--the cronies in the DC government are likely to give DAG a sweetheart deal.

But if somehow the system works without it's traditional ooze of corruption, perhaps he can refuel helicopters.

oboe said...

Unless and until you identify and act upon discrete violations of law, you're pissing into the wind.

Way to move the goalposts, sport.

Anonymous said...

way to quote selectively and not develop an actual argument, chief.

Anonymous said...

opponents of the gas station appear to be losing the battle to convince the city to use whatever discretionary authority it has to not approve the siting of the station and its ensuing impingement of "public space."

You might not like the decision, and it might be classic D.C. cronyism, but there you go.

Having lost that policy battle, your only course of action is to mount a legal challenge to the approval process and to pursue various and sundry other causes of action that may present themselves.

Well, there is one other course of action, I guess, and that is to sit around on a blog and bitch about the "wrongness" of the decision without seeking to actually cure that wrong. Bravo. It's almost as gratifying as spending your time complaining about voting rights instead of volunteering with at-risk youth programs.

Anonymous said...

"A cyclist who doesn't carry a pump is not much of a cyclist."

I was afraid you'd say something like that. I'm really just getting into it. I'll add it to my list of needed paraphenalia.

ACyclistInTheSuburbs

Anonymous said...

"It's almost as gratifying as spending your time complaining about voting rights instead of volunteering with at-risk youth programs."

how does volunteering with at risk youth address the issue of voting rights? What if someone really doesnt like spending time with at risk youth? Is that a requirement for moving to the District?

NotUsuallyInAgreementwithOboebutReally

Jaqen H'ghar said...

Build more cool things and build less things that suck....

Anonymous said...

5:58, I think it's probably a reference to the penchant people in this town have for advocating for change that is very unlikely to occur (i.e., a constitutional amendment to give D.C. formal representation) instead of spending that time doing something tangible (i.e., helping the disadvantaged through direct action).

But, hey, if you don't like black kids, that's cool too.

diane said...

How about a nice garden shop?

Anonymous said...

How about an adult store?!

Bama said...

We have a Hess near us and it sucks. I don't know why gas stations can't be decent in the city, but they can't. If you can do anything (lie, cheat, steal, influence by any means necessary) to stop this gas station, you should do so.

Anonymous said...

I second the garden shop!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Note the last line of the City Paper article: "Sometimes, when you're facing guys like Schaeffer and Mamo, there's nothing to be done."

So guess who they both gave money to in the upcoming Ward 5 special election to replace our favorite felon Harry Thomas? Yep, Kenyan McDuffie. Buying themselves a new Councilmember.

So if you want more of the same, join them. They pretty much own the Mayor, Council Chairman Brown, and most of the City Council already. Why not another one?
Then they can build a few more lovely gas stations or whatever else they want in out neighborhood. Who cares what we think?

Anonymous said...

Hoorah! Another victory for property owner rights on H street. Haters should complain to their district soviet.

Anonymous said...

I have a car. I'm looking forward to having a nice new gas station near me...

inked said...

1:22,
Maybe you should check the campaign finance reports. Schaeffer and Mamo both also gave to Frank Wilds. It looks to me more like they are hedging their bets by giving to the presumed front runners. Hunter, while still a threat, has been hurt a lot by his recent scandals. Some no longer consider him a front runner, and this has really hurt his ability to bring in donations. Check his latest report from the OCF if you want to see this for yourself. I think this race will probably come down to McDuffie, or Wilds.

Anonymous said...

Inked,
So what you're saying is that Mamo and Schaeffer will be just fine with a victory by either McDuffie or Wilds. They'll own yet another DC pol.
Add the labor unions, and a few of the big time lobbyists like John Ray, and the lottery folks, and we're right back where we started from.
Nothing changes.

Anonymous said...

I'm tired of the urban poor who can't afford to own a car complaining about this. It's nice to get out if the city and not see them because they are stuck because they don't have a car.

inked said...

1:00,
That's not even remotely what I'm saying. McDuffie took a single donation from each, as he pledged not to take bundled corporate donations. Wilds took no such pledge, and you can really see the difference in his OCF report. Hunter probably didn't get money from those two (that I saw) because neither one thinks he can win. But he's not immune to taking (and lying about taking) big bundles of cash. He did it with the Stadium Club when he said they gave him $500 and it was really $5,500 in bundled donations. He did something similar last time when he said NOM had given him enough to buy "a playstation." when they had financed literature for him to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars.

I'm not worried about one donation. It you look at McDuffie's report you'll see that he has gotten most of his money from small individual donors in DC. Mamo's not going to "own" someone who raised around $100k for $400-500. That makes no sense.

Robby Mann-Thompson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Beautiful weather we're having

Anonymous said...

The site for this gas station is not in Ward 5, so I'm not sure why McDuffie's name has been invoked. That said, Tommy Wells has not stepped up to the plate.

whitebread said...

tommy wells....my hero

Anonymous said...

Gosh. Isn't there a BP around the corner. It doesn't make sense to me why a gas station is needed. I would rather see a bunch of homeless people, spraying graffitti, using the restoom during the day than seeing another gas station nearby.

Actually the graffitti isn't such a bad idea now that I think about it. Maybe people can spray things on the gas station when they build this thing.

oboe said...

whitebread said...
tommy wells....my hero


A well reasoned point. Kudos, for your valued contribution.

Anonymous said...

The picture of the plan they submitted, while violating the zoning order that it show a closed median on Maryland Avenue, is actually pretty attractive.

Nicely landscaped with redbud trees around the perimeter, black eyed susans, azaelas, etc. I personally won't use the gas station as it will probably have typical too-high DC prices, but at least they make it sound like it won't be an eyesore.

Anonymous said...

I don't see how anything could be worse than what's there now. I'm just glad to see something being done with it. If the neighborhood doesn't need another gas station they will just go out of business and then something else will be built eventually. In the mean time though I'll take the gas station over the boarded up dilapidated structure that's there now serving as a monument of blight. Honestly, what is wrong with you people?

Anonymous said...

anybody know what is going here?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-business/post/anthony-laniers-eastbanc-comes-to-u-street-h-street/2012/05/07/gIQA9zan8T_blog.html

oboe said...

@Anon 6pm:

I don't see how anything could be worse than what's there now. I'm just glad to see something being done with it.

This is the same sort of short-sighted thinking that gave us the H Street Connection, and other anti-urban debacles. In fact, if a gas station is not allowed, it'll be something else in relatively short order. The reason it's vacant now is that there's continuing uncertainty about whether a station can be built, and what form it must follow. If the answer is "No", then the owners will build something else. It's not as though they're sentimentally attached to having a gas station. They want to make money.

Honestly, what is wrong with you people?

You act as though the year is 1984, and we're desperate to take any development we can get. There's not a decent neighborhood on Earth that residents don't--rightfully--demand a say in the development of their environment. For one of a billion counterexamples, head on out to the main "drag" in Manassas sometime. The Almighty Market doesn't always lead to the best outcome. That's why we have zoning, etc...

Karin R said...

I was part of the group 12 years ago that fought the BP station/minimart/carwash at 3rd and H. Because there was so much neighborhood resistance, the project faltered, but only after the owner/BP had bought up more land and old buildings on H and tore them down. That same owner is now developing the site into the Giant and condos and I am sure stands to make more money in the long run. Tell the owners of the land on Maryland to talk to the owner of that property who I believe is named Stewart. They found leaky undergroud storage tanks on the Stewart site and it cost a bundle to separate and dispose of the oil soaked dirt. The same thing could happen on Maryland Ave. and they will never be able to recoup the cost if they only develop it into a gas station.

Anonymous said...

Umm....can we get some new content up in here?

Anonymous said...

i 2nd that

Mrs. Apathy said...

Is there going to be a Shell No Redux campaign this go-round? I moved within a couple blocks of this intersection in early 2010 and I'm eager to relive the glory days of the 2008 original crusade when activism, hope, change, etc really meant something.

washingtonian said...

"i.e., a constitutional amendment to give D.C. formal representation"

@anon 6:56, DC could gain statehood via an act of Congress, like every other state and under the authority vested in Congress by the District Clause. No amendment needed for a vote in Congress for DC...

tubbs said...

@ Washingtonian - are ya sure? Are ya real sure?

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33824_20070124.pdf

COME AT ME, BRO.

Anonymous said...

@Karin R said.

EPA is now giving brownfield/greyfield grants to pay for the clean up. No longer a barrier to redevelopment of old gas station sites.

sypialnie sklepik said...

sypialnie do
łóżka do
materace do
łóżka tapicerowane do
łóżka z pojemnikiem do
łóżka do sypialni do
łóżka metalowe do
łóżka łóżka do
materace koło do
materace tempur do
materace ortopedyczne do

Anonymous said...

Could something more interesting there? Yes. But did someone who wanted to put something more to your taste buy it? No.

Is this their property? Yes. Do they have to listen to the community to come with suggestions as to what it acceptable to put in this location? No. This is their property and within the law they can do whatever the freak they want with it. It may make it easier for them if they are a "good neighbor" and play nice, but sometimes even that isn't good enough for people who just don't want whatever it is.

Is this a great location for a gas station? Maybe - it depends on who you ask. Is this a great use of the space? Again maybe - it depends on who you ask.

Should neighbors make sure that the owner is complying with permits, rules, regs, etc.? Yes. Should they be concerned? Yes. Should they complain about this location not being something they want? It's a free country so sure, why not. Do I care how this plays out? Not really - mostly becuase I just get damn tired of listening to people complain about how property owners/developers are not doing what people in the neighborhood want, they way they want it as if that was they were the single most important decision maker(s). New day, new development drama. If you fight everying like it "the most important decision ever" that in essence nothing is important at all.

Anonymous said...

Is it more than a little annoying to ask and answer 10 of your own questions in a blog comment? Apparently not. Does it betray a lack of self-awareness or common courtesy for the reader? You betcha.

oboe said...

Do they have to listen to the community to come with suggestions as to what it acceptable to put in this location? No. This is their property and within the law they can do whatever the freak they want with it.

Just thought I'd point out the part where your argument dissolves into tautology. No one's arguing that this property be illegally taken from its owner, just that the existing laws and regulations be applied in as crushingly narrow fashion as the law allows.

washingtonian said...

@tubbs

If a constitutional amendment was required to admit a state into the union, we'd have dozens more amendments than we have now because (surprise!) we've added 37 states since the original 13 colonies formed the union. Unless your link goes to the U.S. Constitution, which I've already read, I have no idea how you, um, want me to "come at you".

washingtonian said...

@tubss pt II

To be a good sport, I looked at your link.

Your link is about congressional representation, which is already guaranteed to all states. I was talking about statehood, which could be achieved via a majority vote in Congress.

tubbs said...

dude, you obviously don't know the Constitution like you think you do, and if you can't be bothered to read a CRS report that directly addresses an issue you profess to care about and about which you claim to be knowledgeable, it makes me glad you spend your time tilting at the D.C. voting rights windmill, as opposed to messing up things that actually matter.

Have a nice day, you little sophist, you.

Tubbs said...

oh, goodness. You want to make even sillier arguments. What fun. OK, pop quiz, hot shot: how do you contend with the District Clause, Article IV issues, and the 23rd Amendment? You could be an adherent of Professor Raven-Hansen's "New Columbia" theory, but that possibility that you're even aware of that proposal is belied by the simplistic and conclusory presentation of your argument thus far.

Tubbs dropping knowledge, yo!

Anonymous said...

Hey funboys, get a room.

washingtonian said...

@tubbs

Congress could use its District Clause authority to shrink the federal center to the White House, US Capitol, and National Mall, then use its authority to admit new states into the union to vote in the surrounding land as New Columbia.

I'm not tilting at "voting rights windmills" because (1) I'm talking about statehood, not voting rights (2) I'm actually engaged in work that has nothing to do with statehood at the moment, hence why I had no time *during the workday* to read the rather long piece you linked to in its entirety. Be easy, my employer doesn't pay me to read your links at length. I did read quite a bit of it, enough to know that it doesn't address what I'm talking about directly...the bulk of it deals with whether Congress can legislate the provision of a voting representative to the District, which is separate and apart from what I'm talking about.

ps: Leave the ad hominem attacks somewhere else.

washingtonian said...

@tubbs

I realize this exchange might have gotten off on the wrong foot b/c my initial post appears to conflate the power of Congress to admit new states into the union with the District Clause (which they would need to use to shrink the federal center, so that the separate nature of the seat of federal government could be maintained). Typed too fast, resulting in you finding an article about the District Clause that didn't directly relate to what I intended to be my original point. Okay, back to work now.

washingtonian said...

@ tubbs

You might find the first sentence of Article IV, Section 3 helpful: "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union..." since you brought up Article IV like it isn't the central part of my argument.

Good thing voting DC into the union doesn't do any of these things: "but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."

You were saying?

Tubbs said...

lulz, not cool to act like you knew anything about that theory before I pointed you to it, dude. And your posts didn't "conflate" anything, they just showed that you didn't really know what you were talking about right from the start.

It's Friday, and I need to prepare my basement for this weekend's water play, but I'll get back to you. For now, I'll leave a teaser:

Your arguments re: the District Clause rest on hyper-literalism that would make even Scalia blush; you need to read Article IV more closely and with a more nuanced eye toward the constitutional issues at play than you've yet show an ability to do, and you might want to educate yourself with sources other than those I've gifted to you.

P.S., I'll put my ad hominem attacks where I like, thank you very much

tubbs said...

oh, and don't forget about the 23rd Amendment. Or is the reason you didn't address that one because I didn't provide you with a source you could crib from and then pretend like you already knew what was going on.

washingtonian said...

@tubbs

You literally can't read at all. My second post in our exchange read "If a constitutional amendment was required to admit a state into the union..."

Admitting a state isn't addressed at all in the District Clause, it's addressed in Article IV. You didn't "give" me anything. What you did was read my first statement, saw "District Clause", ignored what I said about "like every other state in the union" (admitted via the power enumerated in Article IV), provided an irrelevant link about whether Congress could provide voting representation (a wholly separate issue from statehood), then pretended you gave me the idea that I suggested at the BEGINNING of our exchange.

You keep talking about "voting rights" not statehood, because you apparently are rehashing an argument you had with a straw man in a farm field one day...SMH.

Statehood. Something not referred to in the District Clause. Something clearly referred to in Article IV. Read. Then reply. In that order.

Actually, don't reply. You haven't written anything worth reading yet.

Sadly, you can't point out one source that outlines why Congress *couldn't* use its Article IV power to admit the District as a state. Since you can't, you fell into hopeless ad hominem attacks and the old dismissive "lulz" Internet poster snark. SMH. You have no argument. Good day.

washingtonian said...

@tubbs

And nothing in the 23rd Amendment overrides Congress' Article IV power to admit New Columbia as a state. Or use its District Clause powers to shrink the federal center and admit the remainder as New Columbia.

You're done here.

bleh said...

Why do you bother to engage Tubbs? Sometimes he's right. Sometimes he's wrong. But right or wrong, he's always an asshole, and isn't worth the trouble.

tubbs said...

meh, Bleh...I'm always right, and I'm always an asshole. I pride myself on consistency.

Washingtonian!!! WASHINGTONIAN!!!! COME OUT AND PLAY!!!!!

You ready to talk about STATEHOOD? We're about to talk about STATEHOOD all up in this bitch! But, not until after the weekend.

Jesus, seriously, get yourself something better to do on a Saturday morning other than worrying about me and then being wrong about constitutional stuff.

I bet you looked cute as a button in your "Georgetown Law" shirt while you munched on a bagel at the coffee shop, though!

washingtonian said...

@tubbs

I wasn't worried about you or you being wrong.

You're wrong about me going to Georgetown Law too, but hey, you might as keep this wrong streak rolling.

H. Lamarr said...

I think Tubbs was speaking metaphorically, Washingtonian. He's a bombastic jerk, but your literalism, in all respects, is just as stultifying.

tubbs said...

don't get lonely, Wasingtonienne....my weekends just last longer than those of normal men. You might think your leisurely days of selling access to yourself are representative of the human experience, but you are wrong. I push myself, constantly, to achieve things that a rent boy drinking pedialite can only begin to imagine. So, rest up, drink some fluids and apply some salve, and get ready for KNOWLEDGE.

Or, just keep on keepin' on, and be a conclusory little hussy. Either way. It's all good.