Evening star., 1944-05-28
The Reclamation
of Logan Court
BIZ Ben McKel,Dau,

area in need of reclamation is Logan
Court NV.
This occupied alley runs east and west
within square bounded by North Capt.
tol, First, l. and Pierce streets. On the
north side of the alley are nine two
story, four-family flats, with two apart
ments on each floor On the south side
are 13 two-story, four houses, each
10 feet wide. The buildings are of brick,
old and in poor condition. One hundred
and eighty-two people live in these 70
structures. They are heated by the
tenants stoves and there is no cleo
tricity, gas or running water in any
of them. There are outside f1ush-type
toilets and hydrants and the rents range
from $40 to SIS per month per unit.
AS COR the square enclosing this alley
the L street frontage is improved prin-
cipally by small two-story brick dwell
ings with n1 Easements. The Pierce
street frontage contains two-story brick
houses and few two and three story
apartment buildings On North Capitol
and ON First street, most of the struc-
lures are for commercial use and are
in good condition. Rents on Pierce street
run from about SIT to $25 and on L
street from $50 to s35 per month, ac-
cording to one estimate
Two Washington builders, Edward r.
Carr and Lewis +. Breuninger, have
made an interesting study of redevelop-
ment, with low-cost housing, of this
square. AS it seems to be pretty good
example, carefully drawn of how
private enterprise" as distinguished
from a public housing agency, would 60
about the business it deserves examina-
ton.
X X
Under the builders plans, the alley
dwellings would be razed. The brick
houses on l. street would be remodeled
and the frame houses replaced by small
apartments. The houses on Pierce street
would be removed and replaced bv
apartment buildings, we'll spaced and
permitting plenty Of sunshine and fresh
air. The properties on North Capitol
and on First streets would not be in
cluded and the Mount Airy Baptist
Church, on L street would remain un-
touched. The operation as a whole
would include condemnation by a public
agency of the area and its sale to a
private builder, who would remove 154
dwelling units housing TOO persons. After
redevelopment. there would be 1873 units,
housing $50 persons. During the opera
tion it would be necessary to find other
living quarters for the TOO inhabitants,
and after its completion $50 of them
would have to find permanent housing
elsewhere.
The architectural and landscaping
treatment OF the reclaimed area is inter-
esting but not important for this dis
cussion. The new housing would con-
sist of 20 units of living room, bath
and kitchen, renting at $3.50; 48 units
of living room, bedroom, kitchen and
bath, renting at $3.50; 80 units of living
room, two bedrooms, kitchen and bath
at $45; IL units Of living room, two bed.
rooms, kitchen and bath at $38 and 81
remodeled units of living ROOM three
bedrooms, dining room, kitchen and
bath at $50. All Of the rents include
SeryiceS.st''0f r1t
~-4Ae x% * X
So much for the physical plans. But
who would pay for it?
no In. this case the use, cost of land and !
construction. Is estimated at $3.50 900.
= The builders say that they have been
assured private financing to the extent
OF 80 per cent first trust loan at 3h
per cent, running from 80 to 80 years.
The builders investment would be $55,-
900, on which he would collect return
of per cent.
The first cost to the taxpayers would
be the difference between the condem-
nation value of the property ($290,75O
and the use value of the land and re-
modelled structures ($163, ,000)-around
$127 1000, or something over $3.50 per unit
The question is whether this initial
taxpayers subsidy of $127 900 (the write
DOWN would ever be recovered or
whether it would represent the outright
cost to the taxpayer of getting rid of the
Slums. In the case under examination,
the builders theory is that the contem-
plated improvements would increase the
PCoCiG tdh ylCio Va tilC dIcd 1loii SoooI
to $9,712 per year, thus repaying the
$127,0O0 in about 10 years. This is a
theory. But it is predicated on new tax
assessment to equal the full cost of con-
struction and that is not the tax assess
ment practice in the District now. In
another example of what might be done
in another area, another builder, Monroe
Warren, estimated that instead of an
increased tax yield after reclamation
there would be a decrease. If his esti-
mate is correct in that case there would
be no recovery by the taxpayer of the
difference between condemnation and
use value through an anticipated in
crease in taxes.
The next cost to the taxpayer is the
proposed method of subsidizing the ten
ant in order to enable him to pay his
rent. The builders in this case estimate
that so per cent of their tenants, receiv-
ing so per cent of their rents from the
Board of Public Welfare, would cost the
District taxpayer 100 per year, about
Sc per month per tenant. That seems a
bit low, as the Board of Public We'll
fare says that it's sewerage payment for
rent in sampling of 1850 cases in
February was $3.50 per month, and for
the 4595 cases on the relief rolls now
it is paying around $4,000 month or
$4,000 per year. Even the lowest rents
charged in new housing are said to be