The retail footprints do seem problematic, but aren't there some knockdown opportunities, where attached buildings could be torn down and new and larger singular units could take their place?
One thing that the article didn't mention about some of the businesses that failed are that they didn't keep regular hours. For example, you could never count on the book store being open when you went there. I'm not certain, but I think the pet store also made this mistake.
The rampant speculation that is still going on along H Street is also a big part of the problem. Small footprints could be overcome if a single owner could acquire adjoining stores and connect them. You would have a larger space, without needing to change the outward appearance. But, with owners of dilapidated buildings dreaming of millions of dollars for their slowly disintegrating eyesores, it's hard to get the corridor going.
This is part of the reason that the Joint 6C/6A Vacant Property Task Force I helped form is working with DCRA and Councilmember Wells to get vacant properties taxed at the correct, higher rate ($5 per $100 in value vs. $1.85).
Does anyone know where the information on the graphic comes from?
I'm curious what makes some properties like Fashion One and Murry's "Development opportunity sites" while others, like the vacant convenience store at 4th & H are places where the "existing property to remain."
Is this taken from some sort of database which indicates retail properties that are open to being sold? If not, how was the information obtained?
I'm glad to see that the Auto Zone and Self Storage are labeled (in the graphic) as 'Development Opportunities' rather that 'Existing Buildings to Remain'.
Doc Moore's is likely to be open within the next two or three weeks, assuming no hangups with inspections or anything like that. They're planning an official "grand opening" for sometime in late summer or early fall, but they should be open before that. That's what I got from Chris when I emailed him to ask last week.
Sova should be open by the fall, as Frank has recently cleared the major obstacle that was impeding his progress. He's got big plans for renovations to the interior and he's upgrading the coffee equipment. If I had to guess, I'd say look for it to be open by September.
I recently tried to frequent an existing business on H. It was not an easy experience. There were no posted hours, and even mid-day during the week I stopped by to find no one there.
The other point - that property owners have unrealistic dollar signs in their eyes - has the potential to become a very big problem.
Yes, H Street has great potential. But you're not going to see your dilapidated small storefront for multiple millions, like some have started to think. Anectdotally we're starting to hear a lot of stories about potential businesses bypassing H because they are being quoted astonishing sums of money for properties.
I can't believe I'm dignifying this with a response, but....
Eminent domain to take individual businesses on H, absent real proof that they are, say, a drug den or whatnot, isn't really the American way.
Sure, it would result in a better commercial strip. But we'd lose a lot in intangible rights to get there.
But I actually would support the use of eminent domain to seize properties that have been drug and crime centers for years, after giving the owner a chance to rectify the situation, assuming he or she could. Most of those tend to be residential, though.
What's with your constant reference to people going back to Iowa or wherever you are assuming they are from?
This is a serious question. Do you think people must live in the neighborhood a certain time period before they have a stake and say in the neighborhood?
The condition of the property really has nothing to do with eminent domain. If they want to take the property for a public use, they can. Just like that. Some of the properties taken for the stadium weren't abandoned and were maintained.
I would rather that the city raise the abandoned tax rate for commercial property to something higher. If the property is falling apart, they need to pay more. We've tolerated these abandoned wrecks for far longer than we should.
The troll is talking about takings via eminent domain for private use, not public, cf. Kelo v. New London. And the troll is the one who needs to read about eminent domain; Susette Kelo's home was not "festering and attracting rats."
Hillman, what you might see in cases of drug dens (this is what they do with nuisance properties under Operation Crackdown) is civil forfeiture. But that doesn't work for properties that are merely blighted. Strict enforcement of tax codes and other local laws (e.g., grass height)are your tools.
Eminent domain is, in my opinion, blatantly abused on a regular basis. Yeah, Kelo's home wasn't blighted. The larger neighborhood was deemed blighted. By the way, one of the cases mentioned in Kelo was Berman v. Parker (which found that an invidual piece of land that wasn't blighted could be seized because the larger are was blighted). Berman v. Parker is, by the way, the Southwest DC urban renewal (so called "negro removal") case. Enough to give one pause before calling for eminent domain, no?
we're dignifying the comments of a person who uses poo poo as their screen name and who apparently needs a harris teeter to validate their existence in this neghborhood. as much as i would like an alternative to the options we have now, and would like to take a leisurely stroll down a tree lined and cleaned up H Street- eminent domain, seriously?
I don't know about this one. It's like walking through a ghost town between 3rd and 6th streets after 6. I would prefer a healthy neighborhood than what we have now. We don't need a Whole Foods, but we don't deserve a Murry's and six chicken shacks either. Call me selfish, but I'm open to anything that will be effective in bringing up our community.
Development opportunities as listed were larger parcels, not small 15-20 foot wide lots. I have some commentary about this article in my blog here: http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2007/06/retail-action-strategy.html and then in 8/2004 I wrote this: http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2005/03/about-h-street-main-street-my-opinion.html
In any case, making H St. over for large footprint stores is probably a mistake, in terms of having a competitive advantage around uniqueness. Selectively, large format stores can be inserted into the fabric in certain places, given the "development opportunities" that exist. If done right, this would complement the historic fabric and independent retail with more anchor like stores that could draw in patrons from outside the immediate neighborhood.
You are correct. I used 'eminent domain' when I should have specified that it'd be a civil forfeiture.
And you're right, that's typically for severe and long-standing crime problems, when the property is being used to the serious detriment of public safety.
But I'm willing to bet that more than one such structure exists in the H Street area.
Again, the key for me would be that the property owner is given a chance to try to fix the problem first. If it's a problem with tenants, then the city needs to help fix the problem.
I too am pretty deeply troubled by the thought of eminent domain for non-public uses. Now that the Supreme Court says it's basically legal, this is sure to be a very hotly contested issue in a lot of places.
23 comments:
-.-
The retail footprints do seem problematic, but aren't there some knockdown opportunities, where attached buildings could be torn down and new and larger singular units could take their place?
One thing that the article didn't mention about some of the businesses that failed are that they didn't keep regular hours. For example, you could never count on the book store being open when you went there. I'm not certain, but I think the pet store also made this mistake.
The rampant speculation that is still going on along H Street is also a big part of the problem. Small footprints could be overcome if a single owner could acquire adjoining stores and connect them. You would have a larger space, without needing to change the outward appearance. But, with owners of dilapidated buildings dreaming of millions of dollars for their slowly disintegrating eyesores, it's hard to get the corridor going.
This is part of the reason that the Joint 6C/6A Vacant Property Task Force I helped form is working with DCRA and Councilmember Wells to get vacant properties taxed at the correct, higher rate ($5 per $100 in value vs. $1.85).
Best,
Alan Kimber
ANC Commissioner, 6C05
Does anyone know where the information on the graphic comes from?
I'm curious what makes some properties like Fashion One and Murry's "Development opportunity sites" while others, like the vacant convenience store at 4th & H are places where the "existing property to remain."
Is this taken from some sort of database which indicates retail properties that are open to being sold? If not, how was the information obtained?
I'm glad to see that the Auto Zone and Self Storage are labeled (in the graphic) as 'Development Opportunities' rather that 'Existing Buildings to Remain'.
Also, for a completely un-PC poke at urban development, check out this piece from The Onion.
what's the latest on dr. granville's and the other h st restaurants/bars that are in the works, in terms of when they might open? thanks.
Doc Moore's is likely to be open within the next two or three weeks, assuming no hangups with inspections or anything like that. They're planning an official "grand opening" for sometime in late summer or early fall, but they should be open before that. That's what I got from Chris when I emailed him to ask last week.
Sova should be open by the fall, as Frank has recently cleared the major obstacle that was impeding his progress. He's got big plans for renovations to the interior and he's upgrading the coffee equipment. If I had to guess, I'd say look for it to be open by September.
That's all I know at the moment.
Napa (1015 H) looks like it's getting close. Sticky Rice is waiting on permits, but they've got about three months of work after they get the permits.
anybody know about club IBIZA in NoMa? i heard they got their permits, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of work going on.
it should knock the socks off of FUR.
Alan:
You raise two very valid points.
I recently tried to frequent an existing business on H. It was not an easy experience. There were no posted hours, and even mid-day during the week I stopped by to find no one there.
The other point - that property owners have unrealistic dollar signs in their eyes - has the potential to become a very big problem.
Yes, H Street has great potential. But you're not going to see your dilapidated small storefront for multiple millions, like some have started to think. Anectdotally we're starting to hear a lot of stories about potential businesses bypassing H because they are being quoted astonishing sums of money for properties.
i dig what hillman is saying.
that's why i support eminent domain.
let the city pay these stalwarts the market value of their vacant properties, and put 'em to some proper use.
otherwise, good and decent businesses will bypass thie area.
i know many of the regular granola heads on this blog will disagree, but they'll all be back in iowa soon enough anyway.... ;o)
Wow, a post in which you didn't call people "retards"; just "granola heads" this time.
Maybe someday you'll actually treat other people with respect.
Poo poo,
I hope eminient domain takes your home away from you.
I can't believe I'm dignifying this with a response, but....
Eminent domain to take individual businesses on H, absent real proof that they are, say, a drug den or whatnot, isn't really the American way.
Sure, it would result in a better commercial strip. But we'd lose a lot in intangible rights to get there.
But I actually would support the use of eminent domain to seize properties that have been drug and crime centers for years, after giving the owner a chance to rectify the situation, assuming he or she could. Most of those tend to be residential, though.
As much as I hate to feed the Poo...
What's with your constant reference to people going back to Iowa or wherever you are assuming they are from?
This is a serious question. Do you think people must live in the neighborhood a certain time period before they have a stake and say in the neighborhood?
if they take my home and pay fair market value because i'm letting it fester and attract rats, that's fine by me.
but i'm not. :o)
read about eminient domain on wiki...
The condition of the property really has nothing to do with eminent domain. If they want to take the property for a public use, they can. Just like that. Some of the properties taken for the stadium weren't abandoned and were maintained.
I would rather that the city raise the abandoned tax rate for commercial property to something higher. If the property is falling apart, they need to pay more. We've tolerated these abandoned wrecks for far longer than we should.
The troll is talking about takings via eminent domain for private use, not public, cf. Kelo v. New London. And the troll is the one who needs to read about eminent domain; Susette Kelo's home was not "festering and attracting rats."
Jeebus.
Hillman, what you might see in cases of drug dens (this is what they do with nuisance properties under Operation Crackdown) is civil forfeiture. But that doesn't work for properties that are merely blighted. Strict enforcement of tax codes and other local laws (e.g., grass height)are your tools.
Eminent domain is, in my opinion, blatantly abused on a regular basis. Yeah, Kelo's home wasn't blighted. The larger neighborhood was deemed blighted. By the way, one of the cases mentioned in Kelo was Berman v. Parker (which found that an invidual piece of land that wasn't blighted could be seized because the larger are was blighted). Berman v. Parker is, by the way, the Southwest DC urban renewal (so called "negro removal") case. Enough to give one pause before calling for eminent domain, no?
we're dignifying the comments of a person who uses poo poo as their screen name and who apparently needs a harris teeter to validate their existence in this neghborhood. as much as i would like an alternative to the options we have now, and would like to take a leisurely stroll down a tree lined and cleaned up H Street- eminent domain, seriously?
I don't know about this one. It's like walking through a ghost town between 3rd and 6th streets after 6. I would prefer a healthy neighborhood than what we have now. We don't need a Whole Foods, but we don't deserve a Murry's and six chicken shacks either. Call me selfish, but I'm open to anything that will be effective in bringing up our community.
Development opportunities as listed were larger parcels, not small 15-20 foot wide lots. I have some commentary about this article in my blog here: http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2007/06/retail-action-strategy.html and then in 8/2004 I wrote this: http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2005/03/about-h-street-main-street-my-opinion.html
In any case, making H St. over for large footprint stores is probably a mistake, in terms of having a competitive advantage around uniqueness. Selectively, large format stores can be inserted into the fabric in certain places, given the "development opportunities" that exist. If done right, this would complement the historic fabric and independent retail with more anchor like stores that could draw in patrons from outside the immediate neighborhood.
Inked:
You are correct. I used 'eminent domain' when I should have specified that it'd be a civil forfeiture.
And you're right, that's typically for severe and long-standing crime problems, when the property is being used to the serious detriment of public safety.
But I'm willing to bet that more than one such structure exists in the H Street area.
Again, the key for me would be that the property owner is given a chance to try to fix the problem first. If it's a problem with tenants, then the city needs to help fix the problem.
I too am pretty deeply troubled by the thought of eminent domain for non-public uses. Now that the Supreme Court says it's basically legal, this is sure to be a very hotly contested issue in a lot of places.
Post a Comment