DC Environmental Agenda 99: Next | Table of Contents
On the whole, Washington D.C. is a beautiful city of historic row-houses and tree-lined streets and parks. All too often, however, D.C. is viewed as a city of boarded up buildings and vacant lots waiting to be redeveloped instead of being seen as a city made up of neighborhoods in need of revitalization. This section makes recommendations for rebuilding D.C.'s neighborhoods and communities for long-term economic stability by protecting and restoring the city's urban environment.
During the past thirty years, D.C. experienced a devastating decline in its tax base as residents fled the city seeking better schools and services in heavily subsidized new developments in the sprawling suburbs of Maryland and Virginia. As more people abandoned the urban core the situation in the city only worsened and D.C. became an experiment in "urban renewal." The obliteration of large parts of historic southwest D.C., the abundance of downtown parking lots and the housing projects on the Anacostia stand as testament to past misguided notions of economic revitalization.
A closer look at why residents left the city reveals that they were seeking the very thing that the city has failed for too long to provide: a clean, safe, healthy environment. Residents want safe streets and good schools, but they also want clean streets, proper waste management, transportation choices, drinking water that is safe, and they want parks and natural, beautiful places too. In the past two years, the outpouring of public support for D.C.'s recycling program, the broad-based citizen movement that formed to stop trash transfer stations and the increasing concern over the state of the Anacostia river have become testament to what revitalization means to the citizens of Washington D.C. Furthermore, the need to protect the health and beauty of D.C.'s environment for the city's huge hospitality and tourism industry cannot be understated.
The recommendations in this agenda are aimed at rebuilding neighborhoods and protecting D.C.'s urban environment. The redevelopment of brownfields, shifting the tax burden away from residents onto absentee property owners speculating on land values, the removal of billboard blight - these are all essential components in any plan to improve the environment and livability of the city's neighborhoods for the city's residents, new and old. This agenda also recommends that the federal government end its practice of strip-mining federal facilities from the nation's capital and moving jobs and residents to far-flung suburban jurisdictions around the country, a practice that has destabilized D.C.'s economy while promoting suburban sprawl wherever the federal facilities have moved.
Redevelop Brownfields
Experience in other states demonstrates that special incentives are needed to encourage redevelopment of "brownfield" sites, i.e., urban industrial and commercial facilities that are abandoned or underutilized, in part, due to environmental contamination or fear of contamination. Redevelopment of brownfield sites has the potential to revitalize distressed communities, increase tax revenue, and provide new jobs. Many other states provide a package of incentives to encourage property owners and prospective purchasers of brownfield properties to clean up and redevelop those sites. The most common incentives are protection from liability for contamination at the site, expedited review procedures for clean-up activities, technical assistance, tax credits or abatements, grants, and low interest loans.
Although the District took up the issue of brownfields redevelopment very late in the day, there is now in place a vision, a program, some Federal funding, and a team of government officials that are pursuing a vision with determination. With a $200,000 grant from EPA, the Environmental Health Administration has embarked on a program with many elements, including: (1) an inventory of brownfields sites in the city; (2) the development of remediation and development policy; (3) public outreach regarding the availability of Federal tax incentives; and (4) technical assistance. This is one of the bright spots in the City's environmental picture.
Congress enacted the Federal "Superfund" law in 1980, and virtually every state has subsequently followed suit. Such laws are necessary to any effort to compel responsible parties to remediate contaminated sites, and to fund government-led remediations where solvent responsible parties cannot be located. The District, however, has no such law. As a result, it is not in a strong position to support those who step forward with development and remediation plans, since it cannot offer them releases from legal liability. And where contaminated sites have been abandoned, there is little the City can do to compel private remediation or begin government cleanup efforts. Conversely, enactment of such a law here would create new opportunities for Federal funding and provide a needed tool for remediating many hazardous sites along the Anacostia and elsewhere while enhancing the redevelopment potential of the city's brownfield sites.
Recommendations for Action:
(1) The Mayor should support the new brownfields initiative. This may require supplementation of the one-person brownfields staff within EHA and/or supplementation of staff resources in the Office of Grants.
(2) The City Council should enact new Superfund-type legislation providing proactive measures to protect public health and environmental quality. The statute should contain a title addressing the remediation and development of brownfields.
Contact for more information: Brenda Richardson, Women Like Us.
Mixed-Use and Transit-Oriented Development
A mix of residential, commercial and retail development is vital for the long-term economic vitality of the city. It is essential that the District government take the lead on ensuring that development in the city - particularly in economically depressed and downtown areas - is "mixed-use," avoiding commercial corridors that are deserted at night and destined to be left vacant when the next economic recession comes around.
In its 1998 Emerging Trends report (an annual review of economic growth areas in the U.S.) the Real Estate Research Corporation stated that, "The best cities to invest in have attractive neighborhoods rooted in and around business districts and stressed that "strong residential is a must." The report points out that "grocery anchored neighborhood centers in infill locations will generate solid returns," and that "24-hour markets dominate [the market]," "combining strong residential fundamentals in their urban cores with multidimensional environments, convenient retailing, relative safety, and mass-transportation alternatives to the car."
A lack of integrated land use and transportation planning not only within the District's borders but around the region has contributed significantly to the loss of residents from the city into surrounding jurisdictions. But there are huge amounts of severely underutilized land particularly near existing and planned Metro stops here in D.C. that should serve as focal points for new mixed-use economic revitalization efforts.
The residential and retail components of many recent development proposals in D.C. have been waived under the excuse that this kind of development is not economically feasible. 24-hour models of development are not only feasible but are in high demand, and they are the only way to ensure the long-term stability of the city.
Recommendations for Action:
(1) The Mayor should instruct the Zoning Commission to carefully
review the city's mixed-use development requirements particularly in the
downtown area, and to strictly enforce these rules when approving new proposals.
(2) The Council should make every effort to ensure that the requirements
for residential and retail components are not waived when reviewing development
proposals.
Split the Property Tax Rate
The District's current property tax rate structure penalizes those who build or improve houses and businesses and rewards speculators who neglect or board up their buildings. This is because land and buildings are now taxed at the same rate: for example, homeowners are taxed at approximately $.96 per $100 of assessed value. The attempt to remedy the problem with the class 5 property tax rate has failed.
Pittsburgh and many other cities have shifted to a more progressive scheme that is designed to promote restoration, conservation, and use of existing property: the "split-rate" property tax. The concept is simple -- instead of taxing both land and buildings at the same rate, say $.96, the City would tax land at a higher rate, say $1.50, and buildings at a lower rate, say $.50. (The latest available rates for Pittsburgh are now $1.84 and $.32, respectively).
The effect of such a tax shift is to encourage maintenance, renovation and new construction while discouraging speculative hoarding of vacant lots or decaying housing. The former director of housing for Harrisburg, PA, has credited that city's split-rate tax with reducing the number of boarded-up housing units from 1,800 in 1985 to less than 400 today.
The split-rate tax can be readily implemented without expensive government programs or regulations and will result in a tax break for most property owners, particularly in low and middle-income neighborhoods, while encouraging home ownership.
Recommendations for Action:
(1) The Mayor should direct the Office of Tax and Revenue (OTR) and
the Board of Real Property Assessments and Appeals (BRPAA) to prepare for
a split-rate property tax.
(a) OTR assessors and BRPAA staff should be trained in proper land
assessment techniques. This should include training in the use of the multiple
regression module of the District's CAMA system. The law presently requires
market value assessment of both land and buildings.
(b) OTR and BRPAA need to establish procedures allowing property owners
to appeal the apportionment of their assessment between land and building
values.
(c) Whenever the next round of proposed assessment notices are mailed
(and from that date forward) taxpayers should be notified that they may
appeal the apportionment of their assessment between land and building
values.
(d) OTR and BRPAA should promote understanding and awareness of the
split-rate concept among ANCs, civic associations, etc. Similar information
should also be provided to business groups.
(e) Summer / Fall 1999, the Mayor should propose a set of split-rate
property tax rates to the Council for enactment. These rates would come
effective at the first billing after property owners have had an opportunity
to appeal their assessment apportionment.
(2) The Council of the District of Columbia should:
(a) Enact legislation authorizing taxpayer appeal of assessment apportionment
between land and building values, unless this has already been accomplished
by an executive order of the Mayor. Neither BRPAA nor the Courts allow
these appeals at present because, under the present system, assessment
apportionment does not affect the total amount of taxes due.
(b) Provide budget support to OTR and BRPAA to cover initial training for
assessors and assessment appeals staff. This cost for training will be
recovered from new revenues that result from increased development
activity.
(c) After the public has had an opportunity to appeal assessment apportionment,
the Council should initiate a gradual reduction in property tax rates on
building values and a gentle increase in tax rates on land values. The
consultant to the D.C. Tax Revision Commission demonstrated that this can
be accomplished without significant tax increases or decreases for the
vast majority of property owners.
Contact for more information: Deborah Katz, Washington Regional Network.
Encourage Location-Efficient Mortgages
Home ownership in the District is made more affordable (relative to home ownership in the outer suburbs) because the density of development, the availability of transit, and the potential for bicycling and walking make it unnecessary to own a car. For households that choose to own a car, one will often suffice.
This translates into a substantial increase in household disposable income. According to AAA, the average annual cost of owning and operating an automobile topped $6700 in 1997. Research in Chicago and Los Angeles has found that people in denser neighborhoods with access to good transit service save $300-400 per month (around $4,000 annually) in transportation costs due to owning only one or no cars.
In 1996, a new mortgage product called the Location Efficient Mortgage® (LEM) was developed. The LEM modifies conventional underwriting by recognizing these savings, and can increase borrowing power in the range of $30,000 - $70,000, in compact communities well-served by transit. For example, applying the $400 monthly savings to an annual household income of $45,000 allows a consumer to qualify for a home selling at $169,363 rather than $128,190 with a conventional mortgage.
In addition to increasing housing affordability, the LEM would also encourage more sustainable land use patterns, increase transit ridership, minimize air pollution, conserve open space, reduce demand for new road capacity, and aid in urban revitalization efforts. Likely LEM borrowers are low- and moderate- income people, especially first-time home buyers.
The Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and several mortgage lenders have agreed to a pilot project in Chicago to lend home buyers up to $30,000 more for homes in location efficient neighborhoods. Fannie Mae will also back a pilot in Los Angeles at a 186-unit affordable housing development to be constructed at a transit station. The non-profit groups involved and Fannie Mae's Office of Housing Impact are looking to make LEM's available to more areas.
Recommendation for Action:
(1) The Mayor should work to implement a LEM program in D.C.: The Mayor should work with the President's Council on Sustainable Development, the Council on Environmental Quality, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other housing finance agencies to address the mortgage needs of low and moderate income households in communities where it is reasonable to live with no or one car.
Contact for more information: Laura Kallus, Integrated Strategies Forum; Laura Olsen, Surface Transportation Policy Project
Remove Illegal Billboards
Billboards are the most intrusive and offensive form of advertising, scarring the landscapes and public spaces of our communities with unwanted advertising. Unlike other forms of advertising billboards are "in your face," you cannot turn the page or flip the channel – you have no choice but to look at them.
Billboards, or "off-premise" signs, which advertise products or places other than the name and business of the property on which they are erected, are heavily restricted under D.C. law. The problem is largely one of lack of enforcement of the existing sign code.
Targeting of minority and low-income communities by billboard operators and alcohol and tobacco companies is well established. (A Baltimore study found that 75% of billboards in the city were illegal and were in low-income and minority neighborhoods; 70% of the illegal billboards advertised alcohol and tobacco.) The result is urban blight in low-income neighborhoods unlike that found in more affluent neighborhoods. Compare Connecticut Avenue with Kennedy Street and the problem is evident: the law is not being enforced in D.C.'s poorer communities.
Enforce the Sign Code
Oversize store signs, storefronts plastered with signs and excessive neon lighting are common sights around D.C., contributing to urban blight in the same way that abandoned buildings and broken windows do. The problem with "on-premise" signs in D.C. is just like that of billboards: there is an abundance of illegal signs that do not adhere to the sign code because of a lack of enforcement. Over the years it has become harder and harder for citizens to get the law enforced: in Adams Morgan, an illegal sign of naked women over the bar Heaven, took many months of constant complaints, despite the Councilmember's concern and involvement, before the sign was removed.
Recommendations for Action:
(1) DCRA should enforce the D.C. Sign Code. Allocate funding to increase the number of DCRA inspectors and to ensure aggressive issuance and collection of fines. Proper enforcement of the sign code is potentially a revenue-raiser for the City in the same way that parking fines are: the "polluter pays."
(2) Ensure that Sign Code Inspectors and Alcoholic Beverage Control Inspectors collaborate on citing problematic liquor stores, bars, and convenience stores that continue to violate the law.
(3) Computerize all sign permit information using GIS or other programs available to allow for efficient enforcement.
Contact for more information: Greg Kidd, Scenic America.
Remove Graffiti
Graffiti is often ignored in D.C. Yet the adverse effect of urban blight on the economic health and security of a city is indisputable. Cities like New York have taken aggressive steps to combat graffiti as part of an overall crime prevention program.
Recommendations for Action
(1) The Mayor should instruct the police to increase enforcement of graffiti laws.
(2) The Mayor should assign responsibility for graffiti removal to one agency and a public "graffiti hotline" should be made available and widely advertised.
(3) The Mayor should instruct the responsible agency to use environmentally safe products for graffiti removal when possible.
Rebuild Federal Employment in the Nation's Capital
Residents of the Washington Metropolitan Area are becoming increasingly concerned about the region's rapidly expanding, low-density sprawl development and its heavy economic, environmental, and social costs. As reckless as sprawl development is, it is not random. It results from Federal, state, and local policy decisions that encourage and subsidize this type of development.
The problem is particularly acute in D.C. because the city has long been dependent on Federal facilities and those facilities are increasingly moving out to the surrounding jurisdictions. The District of Columbia is losing residents, jobs, and tax revenue as a result. In recent years, GSA moved the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the FBI fingerprinting facilities, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and part of the FDA, to name but a few Federal offices, out of the District.
The District of Columbia lost 7,000 jobs from 1997 to 1998. Most of these were District and Federal government positions, with the District losing a disproportionate amount of regional Federal jobs, particularly during Federal downsizing. In February 1998, unemployment in D.C. stood at 9.3%, compared to an average unemployment rate of 3% in Maryland and Virginia suburbs.
The Federal government already occupies twice as much office space in the suburbs as it does in the District. As the numerous advertisements in the Washington Post for office space in the suburbs show, the District will continue to lose Federal jobs and residents to Maryland and Virginia unless the City starts to take an aggressive stance on recruiting and retaining Federal facilities. Alarmingly, these ads show that the GSA's intent is exactly opposite that of Presidential Executive Orders 12072 and 13006, as GSA is specifically seeking to locate several facilities in as yet undeveloped parts of Virginia and Maryland, encouraging sprawl development and urban flight. This is despite the abundance of excellent locations for Federal facilities in the District, including the Southeast Federal Center.
The Council of the District of Columbia passed resolution PR 12-1194, in December 1998, calling on the Mayor to take action to stop the flow of federal facilities from the District of Columbia.
Recommendations for Action:
(1) The Mayor should establish a D.C. Task Force on Federal
Facilities to actively recruit and retain Federal facilities and
restore the District's share of the region's Federal employment to 60%.
The Task Force should --
(a) Engage the Mayor in marketing available D.C. sites to the General
Services Administration and Federal agencies;
(b) Establish a partnership with private business in D.C. to encourage
Federal facility retention and D.C.-based Federal procurement.
(c) Inventory all available US Government owned, D.C. government owned,
and privately owned parcels of land and properties in D.C. that could satisfy
ongoing RFP's for Federal facilities. Build a database of available properties,
rank their benefits (e.g. close to metro, space available, zoning class,
etc.) to prepare the D.C. government in advance for Federal facility
RFP's.
(d) Plan for "livable communities" centered around Federal facilities
with a mix of commercial and residential properties and re-investment in
local schools.
(2) The Mayor should work with Congress to adopt a resolution calling for a full economic impact assessment before any Federal facility is removed from an urban area (similar to a proposal made by the D.C. Appleseed Center).
(3) The Mayor should forge alliances with inner suburban officials and Members of Congress to retain existing Federal jobs inside the Beltway.
(4) The Mayor should aggressively promote the Southeast Federal Center as a location for additional Federal facilities.
Contact for more information: Danilo Pelletiere, Sierra Club New Columbia Chapter; Anna El-Eini, Friends of the Earth.
Fully Investigate the New Convention Center
The new convention center is being constructed just north of Mount Vernon Square in an historic, residential neighborhood lacking multi-modal transportation access. While other more economically and environmentally preferable sites exist in the District for such a major development it appears that the new center will be built at the Mount Vernon site.
Recommendations for Action:
The convention center poses the following challenges for the new Mayor and Council:
(1) The Mayor and Council should review the criteria for siting development proposals of this scope in D.C. to prevent future developments from being situated where poor transportation and product delivery options exist.
(2) The Mayor should call for an investigation to determine if the 1994 D.C. hospitality tax law has been violated in order to fund the new convention center. This law forbids the collection and expenditure of a hospitality tax on restaurants, hotels etc., until the contractors of the new development for which the tax is being proposed, have submitted a fixed price contract to the city. To date it appears that no such price has been submitted. Citizens should not have to resolve such a critical issue in court.
(3) The Council should hold oversight hearings on the application of the D.C. Energy Efficiency Act of 1994, which was not implemented properly when construction of the new convention center was approved.
Contact for more information: Jenefer Ellingston, D.C. Green Party.