The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1903-10-17
Building Regulations.
Enforced and Ignored, Apparently, at
Will. Why?

Will. Why?
On March /, 1902, the Commission
ers of the District promulgated"
the word is such a mouthful and
sounds rather impressive egula-
tons governing the erection, removal,
repair, and maintenance of build.
ings." They promulgated" these
regulations in accordance with the
provisions of an act of Congress
which directed them to snake and
enforce" the regulations as if they
had been enacted by Congress itself.
They were likewise authorized to in
fiict penalties should the regulations
be ignored. And to set all these reg
ulations going, as it were, at once they
were empowered to appoint an In
spector of Buildings and to surround
such inspector with a staff of assist
ants. That, and much more, they
were empowered to do, which we
haven't the time now to record in
black and white, except to remark, in
cidentally, that this machinery is run
al an annual cost to the taxpayer OF
about So, 1000
For such a sum most people would
imagine the regulations which are be
fore US, bound in what an expert de-
clares to be spanked baby" color,
could be enforced with reasonable eff
hciency. But such does not appear
to be the case. On the contrary, if
the regulations had never been 'prC-
mulgated;" if they had never been
framed, codified and in solemn con
clave adopted by the Commissioners;
il they had never been the object of
Congressional deliberation-we could
not imagine a condition of things TO
exist which would more strikingly
illustrate the purely ornamental char
acter of the regulations than that
which confronts us In nearly every
street where building operations are
being carried on now.
We shall content ourselves today
with citing a single instance. The
building regulations prescribe:
Sec. JAG. The occupation Of sidewalks or
rcadways by articles not intended for imme-
date use. i. G. from day 20 day, in connection
with the operation for which the permit has
been Issued, wiz not be allowed
Sec. 147. When considered necessary by the
Inspector Of Buildings the space allotted for
materials may extend iaterally in the roadway
twenty feet on each side Of the lot on which
the building is being erected.
At present there is building going
up facing Connecticut Avenue, be-
tween II and l Streets. Not only is
half of the street in front of the
building, and twenty feet ON either
side of it, occupied with material of
one sort or another, but cinder heaps
stretch to the south as far almost as
the corner Of II Street, while TO the
north mortar beds, cut stone, brick
piles, and other rubbish extend 10 the
very edge Of Street, the contractors
engaged IN the erection Of single
building occupying therefor half of
q street for one entire block. There
are other violations Of the building
regulations on this same avenue, and
many more besides in other parts Of
the city, but this one is a particularly
fragrant one.
The questions arise: Do the con
tractors own the Inspector of Build
ings and the Commissioners Arc
tley permitted openly TO defy the
regulations under the plea that they
are public benefactors2 Have the
ordinary citizens who are content to
pay their taxes, though they may
sometimes long for a chance to ex-
press their opinion of such a govern
nlent at ballot box, no rights these
contractors are bound TO respect
Are the regulations" dead letter.
IL the costly machinery of inspection
only farce7 Or have these "reguIa-
hons" been framed with the view Of