Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1920-08-11

that in practically all the streets run |
ming north and south there is a very |
Pennsylvania avenue to K street, and |
a step-off effect is inevitable, but the
conditions will be helped very much by
keeping the heights of the buildings in
the same level as allowed by the present
regulations.
81. 1t has been brought to our at
tention that there are a number of
buildings in the District of Columbia
the owners of which have gone to the
expense of installing foundations and
structural steel heavy enough to put on
additional stories. If these stories are
not allowed, these owners will be denied
a full return on their investment and
will be put to considerable loss.
rs. We have also been advised
that there are a number of large
building projects in contemplation,
and if those interested in these prof.
the full limit of height now allowed
the projects will have to be aban-
doned.
&c. We believe all our citizens
should have the same advantages,
and it hardly seems equitable for
those contemplating building to be
denied the same rights as those who
built under the present regulations.
and the reduction in building height
will retard our American ideas of
ness generally for these reasons.
Land Values Affected.
az. Suppose a building is contem-
plated on piece of property which
under the present laws will have a
net area of 5000 square feet at a
rental of $3.50 per square foot, or
$500 a year per floor. If the height
of the building must be reduced two
stories. as contemplated by the pro-
pOSed regulations there will he
consequent reduction of $4,000. or
about one-siXth of the income from
this property. AS the price of land
is governed by it's earning power, its
one-siXth, and as natural result it
would be expected that the District
would lower it's assessment and
thereby lessen the tax return from
this property. In addition to the loss
occasoned by the reduction of the
courts and areas is increased ap-
proximately per cent, as now con- :.
templated, it will further reduce the
floor area. the income, the land value,
and finally the tax return, creating
loss all down the line and proba-
BILE abandonment of the project.
IS. Under conditions as outlined
in the preceding paragraph. the per-
son erecting such building would
naturally be led to employ cheaper
uCllOH Ill OIueT u insure d
fair return on his investment, thus
destroying the reputation of the city
for durable and permanent buildings
and for the quality of its workman
ship.
80 The suggestion has been made
that instead of the erection of high
buildings the same result can be OBJ
tanned by the purchasing of more
ground and erecting buildings with
greater floor area. That suggestion
might have had considerable force in
times past. Now, however, in the
principal business district there is lit
tie ground available at a reasonable
price. And the amount of ground
Will rapidly grow less and the price
higher as time goes on.
10. AS our streets are generally
wide and our building heights not I'M
reasonable, and as the present regu-
lations have worked well and salts
factorily, we believe our citizens are
generally opposed to any change. and
the wishes of the people should be
respected.
III. While it may be true that
many foreign cities have height re-
strictions below ours. it should be
borne in mind that those cities al
centuries old and have not had the
rapid growth of the American cities
and have not been called upon to
meet the demands that have made
can city necessity.
Foresees Possible Hardship.
1.-THE chamber also desires to call
attention to that part of section 6 of
the coming act which reads as fol-
lows:
THAT any lawful use of building
CT premises existing at the time of
the adoption of this act may be con-
tinued, although such use does not
conform with the provisions hereof or
with the provisions of such orders and
regulations. and such use may be ex-
tended throughout the building, pro-
Vided no structural alteration, eN-
cept those required by law or regu
lation, is made therein and no new
building is erected
I'm this connection the commission
has provided in the proposed regula-
tons the following:
Except a. hereinafter provided no
building shall be erected or altered,
nor shall any building or premises be
used for any purpose other than is
permitted in the use dictrlct' in
which such building or premises is
loca ted
I'VE do not question the desirable
ity of these regulations as applied to
new buildings and their uses, but
their application to existing build
ings or premises used for business
prohibited in the District may easily
prove an injustice and hardship for
an unfortunate owner who may wish
to increase his building or premises
to take care of a necessary expansion
of his business.
.The apparent object Of this section
and the regulations is to discourage
business in prohibited districts and
force it to districts assigned to it
under the act and regulations. The
object is praiseworthy, but If put
in force as contemplated we fear it
may endanger the constftutionality
of the coming act.
"a man may have business which
when organized was in a proper
regulations is now in a prohibited
district. All his money may be in
vested in this business. which is
growing and successful. To say that
in order to enlarge and protect this
growing enterprise the owner must
dispose of his property, at no mat
ter how great a sacrifice, and move
into some other locality, may dis
rupt or wholly destroy his business.
He obtained or built his plant, I'M
at the time, with the full purpose of
caring for it's growth by improve
ments, engagements or alterations,
which are now to be denied him.
Such restriction or prohibition seems
altogether opposed to the American
spirit of fair play.
Again, man who has developed
prosperous and growing business
may have purchased additional
ground adjacent to his building for
the purpose of charging his plant
and it's capacity If this business is
coming plan, the owner is estopped
from using the land for the purpose
for which it was acquired, and can
not enlarge his business upon land