U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

19–010 

" ! SENATE 

112TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2012

112–154 

Calendar No. 352 

TO PROMOTE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE 

SOUTHWEST WATERFRONT IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND FOR OTHER 

PURPOSES 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

TO ACCOMPANY

H.R. 2297 

TO PROMOTE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOUTHWEST WATERFRONT IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

MARCH 29, 2012.—Ordered to be printed 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTScongress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

BETH M. GROSSMAN, Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

ELYSE F. GREENWALD, Professional Staff Member 

NICKOLAS A. ROSSI, Minority Staff Director 

MARK B. LEDUC, Minority General Counsel 

DANIEL F. JENKINS, Minority Legislative Correspondent 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Calendar No. 352 

112TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 112–154 

TO PROMOTE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOUTHWEST 

WATERFRONT IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND 

FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

MARCH 29, 2012.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. LIEBERMAN, from the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 2297] 

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 

to which was referred the bill (H.R. 2297) to promote the development of the Southwest waterfront in the District of Columbia, and 

for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably 

thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Purpose and Summary .................................................................................. 1 

II. Background and Need ................................................................................... 2 

III. Legislative History ......................................................................................... 3 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis .......................................................................... 4 

V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact .................................................................. 4 

VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ................................................ 5 

VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ........................... 5 

I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The Southwest Waterfront is a 27 acre plot of land within the 

District of Columbia which was transferred from the federal government to the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency 

in 1960. The legislation which transferred this land delineated the 

boundaries of the Southwest Waterfront, but those boundaries have 

since shifted, which means a few parcels of land are not clearly 

owned by the District in statute. In addition, the legislation restricted D.C.’s ability to use the Southwest Waterfront. The District 

of Columbia now seeks to develop this property through a new public-private partnership. To facilitate such development, H.R. 2297 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

1 ‘‘Southwest Waterfront Disposition Third Revised Emergency Approval Resolution of 2008’’ 

(D.C. Resolution 17–955). 2 ‘‘Southwest Waterfront Bond Financing Act of 2008’’ (DC Law 17–252; DC Official Code § 2– 

1217.131 through § 2–1217.143). 3D.C. Zoning Commission Order No. 11-03; http://dcoz.dc.gov/orders/11–03.pdf, p. 33. 

clarifies the ownership of those parcels not included in the original 

legislation and grants D.C. greater flexibility on the disposition of 

the land. 

II. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

In 1956, the National Capital Planning Commission finalized an 

urban renewal plan for the redevelopment of the Southwest Waterfront in the District of Columbia. In order to execute the plan, in 

1960 Congress passed, and President Eisenhower signed into law, 

a bill to transfer all right, title and interest of the United States 

with regard to the Southwest Waterfront to the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency. Technically, the land was conveyed from the federal government to the Commissioners of the 

District of Columbia, the three-person federal board overseeing 

the District prior to the enactment of the Home Rule Act. The legislation, P.L. 86–736, delineated the boundaries of the transferred 

land as: 

. . . the area bounded by the east line of Fourteenth 

Street Southwest, the existing southerly (or westerly) 

building line of Maine Avenue Southwest, the northerly 

line of Fort Lesley J. McNair at P Street Southwest, and 

the bulkhead line established pursuant to the Rivers and 

Harbors Act of 1899 (30 Stat. 1151), as amended, together 

with any land area extending channelward from said bulkhead line. 

The urban renewal plan took nearly ten years to implement. 

During construction, the streets and bulkhead line which served as 

the boundary lines of the Southwest Waterfront in P.L. 86–736 

changed slightly. For example, by 1966, a straight bulkhead had 

been built along the Washington Channel, replacing the irregular 

bulkhead which had been the previous boundary. In the construction of this bulkhead, land was created that did not previously 

exist, and therefore was not clearly transferred to D.C. in P.L. 86– 

736. The District has functionally owned the land since its construction. Maine Avenue Southwest, another boundary line, has 

also shifted. It no longer turns southerly to follow the shoreline, 

but remains on an east to west course. D.C. has since acquired 

the land between the previous Maine Avenue Southwest route and 

the present path, though that is not represented in current statute. 

The District has also functionally owned this land since its acquisition. 

The District government now has new plans to revitalize the 

Southwest Waterfront. In December 2008, the District entered into 

a public-private partnership with Hoffman-Struever Waterfront 

L.L.C. (now Hoffman-Madison Waterfront L.L.C.) to develop the 

land.1 D.C. also passed legislation in 2008 to provide $198 million 

in public financing for the project.2 The planned development 

would create approximately 3 million square feet of mixed use facilities along the Washington Channel.3 Once complete, the project 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

4http://dcclims1.dccouncil.us/images/00001/20090807122433.pdf, p. 5. 

5 http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/blog/2011/02/dcs-sw-waterfront-application-filed.html 

?page=all. 

is estimated to generate $32 million in annual taxes for D.C. and 

bring 1,800 permanent new jobs based on conservative estimates.4

The planning behind this project is well underway and construction 

is estimated to begin in the first quarter of 2013.5

To facilitate this planned development, the District seeks to clarify its ownership of the parcels in question. As explained above, 

due to the changes in the boundary lines of the Southwest Waterfront since the passage of P.L. 86–736 in 1960, a few parcels of 

land lack clear ownership in statute even though they have always 

been used by the District and are commonly understood to be part 

of its Southwest Waterfront holdings. 

Therefore, Section 1 of H.R. 2297 would change the legal description of the area consistent with the description of the Southwest 

Waterfront Project Site as filed with the District of Columbia Recorder of Deeds on October 27, 2009, as Instrument Number 

2009116776. The bill would also permit D.C. to relinquish all right, 

title and interest of the United States of America (including any 

federal agency or department) in the Southwest Waterfront as described by the Recorder of Deeds in Instrument Number 

2009116776. Section 1 of the bill also removes certain provisions of 

the original transfer legislation that are no longer applicable, and 

it replaces the outdated ‘‘urban renewal plan’’ with the term ‘‘master plan.’’ The bill also allows D.C. to sell parts of the Southwest 

Waterfront, which will allow the public-private partnership to sell 

the relevant air rights related to certain planned condominium developments. 

Although the original transfer statute was incorporated as part 

of the D.C. Code, the city is not free to amend it without Congressional approval due to the restrictions in the original legislation. 

III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

H.R. 2297 was introduced by D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton on June 22, 2011. Versions of this bill had been introduced previously as parts of larger bills in the 111th Congress. Both H.R. 

4207, the 2009 District of Columbia Omnibus Authorization Act, 

and H.R. 5103, the 2010 District of Columbia Omnibus Authorization Act, contained sections with similar intent and language to 

H.R. 2297. In addition, on June 16, 2010, Delegate Norton introduced a freestanding bill, H.R. 5544, that closely resembles H.R. 

2297. It was referred to the House Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform’s Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Post 

Office and the District of Columbia, but did not advance. 

This Congress, H.R. 2297 was also referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The Committee subsequently referred the bill to the Subcommittee on Health Care, 

District of Columbia, Census and the National Archives. On November 3, 2011, the Subcommittee discharged the bill and the full 

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform adopted 

H.R. 2297 by voice vote with a substitute amendment offered by 

Delegate Norton. The amendment added Section 3 to the bill and 

made technical corrections. On December 6, 2011, H.R. 2297 as 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

amended by the Committee passed the House of Representatives 

under suspension of the rules. 

On December 7, 2011, H.R. 2297 was referred to the Senate 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The 

Committee considered the bill on December 14, 2011, and ordered 

the bill favorably reported to the full Senate by voice vote. The 

Senators present were Senators Lieberman, Levin, Akaka, Begich, 

Collins, Coburn, Brown, Johnson and Portman. 

IV. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1: Promoting development of the Southwest Waterfront 

Subsection (a) of Section 1 would update the description of the 

property by striking part of D.C. Code Section 6–321.01 and inserting language to define the Southwest Waterfront as described in 

Instrument Number 2009116776 as filed with the District of Columbia Recorder of Deeds on October 27, 2009. 

Subsection (b) of Section 1 would also amend D.C. Code Section 

6–321.01 and transfer the land by one or more quitclaim deed, ensuring that all parcels—including those that did not exist at the 

time of the original transfer legislation—are clearly transferred to 

the District of Columbia. 

Subsection (c) of Section 1 updates D.C. Code Section 6–321.02 

to reference a ‘‘master plan’’ instead of an urban renewal plan for 

the Southwest Waterfront that has expired. 

Subsection (d) of Section 1 would expand permissible disposition 

and uses of the property and strikes the existing D.C. Code Section 

6–321.04, which contains provisions from the expired urban renewal plan. 

Subsection (e) of Section 1 would strike D.C. Code Section 6– 

321.05 which contains provisions from the previous Urban Renewal 

Plan. 

Subsection (f) of Section 1 would update Section 6–321.08 of the 

D.C. Code, to clarify that the District of Columbia is the successor 

in interest to the abolished District of Columbia Redevelopment 

Land Agency. 

Section 2: Clarification of permitted activities at Municipal Fish 

Market 

This section amends Section 37–205.01 of the D.C. Code to allow 

the Mayor to determine the appropriate uses for the Municipal 

Fish Market. 

Section 3: Maine Lobsterman Memorial 

This section prohibits the removal, destruction or obstruction of 

the Maine Lobsterman Memorial, but does allow the memorial to 

be moved to another location on the Southwest Waterfront if that 

location meets certain criteria. 

V. EVALUATION OF REGULATORY IMPACT

Pursuant to the requirement of paragraph 11(b)(1) of rule XXVI 

of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has considered 

the regulatory impact of this bill and has determined that the bill 

would have no regulatory impact. Moreover, CBO states that the 

bill contains no intergovernmental or private sector mandates as 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose 

no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

VI. ESTIMATED COST OF LEGISLATION

DECEMBER 20, 2011. 

Hon. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, 

Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2297, an act to promote 

the development of the Southwest waterfront in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew Pickford. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 2297—An act to promote the development of the Southwest waterfront in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes 

H.R. 2297 would amend the District of Columbia Official Code to 

transfer all federal right, title, and interest in the Southwest waterfront area to the District of Columbia. The legislation would authorize the District of Columbia to lease or sell the site, expand the 

District’s authority to manage the Maine Avenue Fish Market, and 

allow the Maine Lobsterman Memorial to be moved to another location. 

Information from the National Park Service and the National 

Capital Planning Commission indicates that the property that 

would be transferred is not being used by the federal government, 

and no income is generated from it under current law. Thus, CBO 

estimates that implementing H.R. 2297 would have no significant 

effect on the federal budget. Enacting the legislation would not affect revenues or direct spending; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. 

H.R. 2297 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

On November 17, 2011, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 

2297 as ordered reported by the House Committee on Oversight 

and Government Reform on November 3, 2011. The two versions of 

the legislation are identical, and the CBO cost estimates are the 

same. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew Pickford. The 

estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

VII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the following changes in existing law made by 

the bill, as reported, are shown as follows: (existing law proposed 

to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed 

in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CODE 

DIVISION I—GOVERNMENT OF DISTRICT 

TITLE 6—HOUSING AND BUILDING 

RESTRICTIONS AND REGULATIONS 

CHAPTER 3—HOUSING REDEVELOPMENT 

Subchapter III—Transfer to Agency of Certain Property 

Near Maine Avenue 

Sec. 6–321.01. 

Subject to the provisions of §§ 6–301.20, 6–311.01, and this subchapter, the Council of the District of Columbia is authorized on 

behalf of the United States to transfer by one or more quitclaim 

deeds to the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency established by § 6–301.03, all right, title, and interest of the United 

States in and to part or all of certain property in the said District, 

as follows: øThe area bounded by the east line of 14th Street 

Southwest, the existing southerly (or westerly) building line of 

Maine Avenue Southwest, the northerly line of Fort Lesley J. 

McNair at P Street Southwest, and the bulkhead line established 

pursuant to the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (30 Stat. 1151), as 

amended, together with any land area extending channelward from 

said bulkhead line.¿ The property located within the bounds of the 

legal description of which is the Southwest Waterfront Project Site 

(dated October 8, 2009) under Exhibit A of the document titled ‘‘Intent to Clarify the Legal Description in Furtherance of Land Disposition Agreement’’, as filed with the District of Columbia Recorder 

of Deeds on October 27, 2009 as Instrument Number 2009116776. 

Sec. 6–321.02. 

The Council of the District of Columbia shall, prior to transferring to the Agency right, title, and interest in and to any of the 

said property described in § 6–321.01, determine whether such 

property is necessary to the redevelopment of the southwest section 

of the District of Columbia in accordance with øan urban renewal 

plan¿ a master plan approved by it, and, if it so finds, it shall, acting on behalf of the United States, transfer and donate to the 

Agency all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to 

so much of said property as it determines is necessary to carry out 

such master planø such urban renewal plan¿. 

Sec. 6–321.03. 

øSubject to the provisions of § 6–321.05,¿ The Council of the District of Columbia shall, at the time of transferring to the Agency 

right, title, and interest in and to any of the property described in 

§ 6–321.01, also transfer to the Agency the Mayor’s jurisdiction as 

provided by § 10–501.01 over so much of the said property as may 

be so transferred. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

Sec. 6–321.04. 

ø(a)¿ The Agency is hereby authorized, in accordance with øsubchapter I of Chapter 1 of this title, to lease to a redevelopment 

company or other lessee¿ the District of Columbia Redevelopment 

Act of 1945 and section 1, to lease or sell to a redevelopment company or other lessee or purchaser such real property as may be 

transferred to the Agency under the authority of this Act. øsubchapter but may not otherwise dispose of such property except to 

the United States or any department or agency thereof, or to the 

District of Columbia, in accordance with § 6–321.05. In the event 

that real property acquired by the Agency from the United States 

pursuant to this subchapter is transferred to the District of Columbia or to any department or agency of the United States pursuant 

to this section, such transfer shall be without reimbursement or 

transfer of funds.¿ 

ø(b) In connection with the leasing of the real property transferred to the Agency under the authority of this subchapter, together with the leasing of any real property lying between such 

real property so transferred and the southerly or westerly line of 

Maine Avenue as the same may be relocated in connection with 

carrying out an urban renewal plan, the Agency is authorized and 

directed to provide to the owner or owners of any business concern 

displaced from the area described in § 6–321.01, a priority of opportunity to lease, either individually or as a redevelopment company 

solely owned by the owner or owners of 1 or more such business 

concerns, so much of such real property lying channelward of the 

southerly or westerly line of Maine Avenue as so relocated, at a 

rental based on the use-value of the real property so leased determined in accordance with the provisions of § 6–301.09, and 

§ 1460(c)(4) of Title 42, United States Code, as may be required for 

the construction of commercial facilities at least substantially equal 

to the facilities from which such business concern was so displaced. 

The priority of opportunity created by this section is a personal 

right of the owners of businesses displaced. In the event of the 

death of any such owner of any such displaced business, the spouse 

of such owner, or, if there is no spouse, the children of such owner 

shall be entitled to exercise the priority of such owner in accordance with the provisions of this section, but in no event shall any 

such priority be otherwise transferable; provided, however, that the 

spouse or the children, as the case may be, shall have no greater 

priority than the priority holder would have had if living. For the 

purposes of exercising such priority, the spouse or children, as the 

case may be, shall be deemed to be owner of such business concern 

so displaced. When the real property affected by the provisions of 

this subsection becomes available for leasing by the Agency, the 

Agency shall notify, in writing, the owners of the business concerns 

displaced, as to the availability of such real property for leasing to 

such owners in accordance with the provisions of this subsection. 

The Agency shall give such owners so notified a period of 180 days 

to notify the Agency, in writing, of their intention to proceed in accordance with the general development plan of the Agency for the 

area lying channelward of Maine Avenue, as so relocated, and to 

demonstrate to the Agency their ability to carry out so much of 

such plan as may be embraced within the area which they desire 

to lease. If at the end of such period of 180 days, such owners have 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

failed to make a demonstration to that effect which is satisfactory 

to the Agency, the priority of opportunity provided by this subsection shall no longer continue to be available to such owners, except that if after the end of such 180-day period the Agency shall 

change the terms under which real property is to be leased, or the 

redevelopment plan for the area described in § 6–321.01 is changed 

so as to affect the economic value of the leasehold, the Agency shall 

in writing notify each such owner of the change or changes so made 

and give to such owner so notified a period of 60 days within which 

to advise the Agency in writing of his intention and to demonstrate 

his ability to proceed as aforesaid. 

ø(c)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, whenever, 

pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, the Agency offers leaseholds to persons entitled to a priority of opportunity to lease under 

the provisions of this section, the annual rent prescribed in such 

lease shall not exceed an amount which is the greater of: 

ø(A) An amount equal to 6% of the residual value of the land 

for the prescribed use to which any owner of a displaced business concern shall put such land under such lease; 

ø(B) The annual amount which the Agency shall be required 

to pay in principal and interest on a 40-year loan of an amount 

equal to the residual value of the land under such lease which 

value is the residual value of the land which was determined 

by the Agency, in accordance with this subsection, and on the 

basis of which such land was initially leased under this section; or 

ø(C) The sum of: (i) the amount determined under subparagraph (A) or (B) of this paragraph, whichever is greater; and 

(ii) 50% of the product of the occupancy cost factor for the class 

and character of the business of such lessee times the amount 

by which the lessee’s actual annual gross sales income exceeds 

the estimated gross sales income (for the class and character 

of the displaced business) used by the Agency in determining 

the residual value of the land leased to such lessee. 

ø(2) In the case of any land which the Agency leases under this 

section, the annual rent prescribed by the Agency in the lease of 

such land shall not, during the 43-year period beginning on the 

date such land was first leased by the Agency under this section, 

be less than the amount determined under subparagraph (B) of 

paragraph (1) of this subsection. In the case of any land which the 

Agency leases under this section to a displaced business, the residual value of such land: 

ø(A) May be redetermined by the Agency after the expiration 

of 25 years from the date such land was first leased by the 

Agency and at the end of each 10-year period thereafter; or 

ø(B) Shall be redetermined by the Agency if at the end of the 

25-year period from the date such land was first leased by the 

Agency or at the end of each 10-year period thereafter, the lessee requests the Agency to redetermine such residual value. 

ø(3) The residual value of such land shall make due allowance 

for the cost to the owner of the displaced business of all improvements and public charges on such land, and shall not exceed the 

maximum fair use value economically feasible to permit the reestablishment of a business of the class and character of such displaced business. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

ø(4) Each business holding a lease under this subchapter shall 

furnish annually to the Agency (on such date as the Agency may 

by regulation prescribe) a copy of the sales tax return filed by such 

business under the District of Columbia Sales Tax Act, which copy 

was furnished to the business under § 47–2018(a). 

øSec. 6–321.05. 

øNotwithstanding §§ 6–321.01 to 6–321.04, if any of the real 

property transferred to the Agency under the authority of this subchapter is not leased by the Agency in accordance with an urban 

renewal plan approved by the Council of the District of Columbia 

or otherwise disposed of, on or before the date the Secretary of 

Housing and Urban Development makes the final federal capital 

grant payment to the Agency for the project pursuant to title I of 

the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, then the right, title, and interest in and to so much of the said real property as is not so 

leased or otherwise disposed of by such date shall revert to the 

United States, subject to the exclusive control and jurisdiction of 

the Mayor of the District of Columbia, and subject to the provisions 

of §§ 10–111 and 10–112.¿ 

Sec. 6–321.06. 

Nothing contained in this subchapter shall be construed as requiring the said Council of the District of Columbia to transfer the 

right, title, and interest in and to so much of the property described in § 6–321.01 as the Council may determine, in its discretion, is required for municipal purposes or is to continue to be 

owned by the United States under the jurisdiction of the Mayor, for 

the benefit of the District of Columbia. 

Sec. 6–321.07. 

No transfer or donation of any interest in real property under the 

authority of this subchapter shall constitute a local grant-in-aid in 

connection with any urban renewal project being undertaken with 

federal assistance under title I of the Housing Act of 1949, as 

amended. 

Sec. 6–321.08. 

As used in this subchapter, any reference to the ‘‘Agency’’ shall be 

deemed to be the District of Columbia as the successor interest to 

the Agency. øthe terms ‘‘Agency,’’ ‘‘lessee,’’ ‘‘real property,’’ ‘‘redevelopment,’’ and ‘‘redevelopment company’’ shall have the respective 

meanings provided for such terms by § 6–301.02.¿ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CODE 

DIVISION V—LOCAL BUSINESS AFFAIRS 

TITLE 37—WEIGHTS, MEASURES, AND 

MARKETS 

CHAPTER 2—WEIGHTS, MEASURES, AND MARKETS 

GENERALLY 

Subchapter III—Markets Generally 

Section 37–205.01. 

The Mayor of the District of Columbia is authorized and directed 

in the name of the District of Columbia to exclusively control, regulate, and øoperate as a municipal fish wharf and market¿ operate 

as a market and for such other uses as the Mayor determines to be 

appropriate, the water frontage on the Potomac River lying south 

of Water Street, between 11th and 12th Streets, including the 

buildings and wharves thereonø, and said wharf shall constitute 

the sole wharf for the landing of fish and oysters for sale in the 

District of Columbia¿; and said Mayor shall have power to make 

leases, fix and determine rentals, wharfage and dockage fees, and 

to collect and pay the same into the treasury of the United States 

to the credit of the General Fund of the District of Columbia; and 

said Mayor to make and amend, from time to time, all such regulations as it may deem proper for the control, regulation, and øoperation of said municipal fish wharf and market¿ operation of said 

market. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS