Evening star., 1946-06-25
18th St. zoninq
Fight Carried
To Senate Unit
Plan for Apartments
At Shepherd Street
AssoiIed, Defended

The f1ve-year-old f1ht to prevent
construction of an apartment house
at Sixteenth and Shepherd streets
NV, was carried before a Senate
District subcommittee today.
Advocates and opponents Of bill
to require the rezoning of the prop
erty to prohibit the apartment house
were heard by the subcommittee
headed by Senator Johnston, Demo.
crat, of South Carolina.
Herbert Pillen, representing the
Crestwood Citizens Association, and
G. v. Maudlin, one of the property
owners in the area, argued in favor
OF the legislation. They contended
a recent Court of Appeals decision
upholding District Courts ruling
against them was unfair and un-
justified, adding that they were
appealing to the Supreme Court.
Mr.. Pillen pointed out that tho
area affected was occupied entirely
by residents who owned their homes
and intended to spend the rest Of
their lives there. Their investment
would be seriously damaged by the
apartment, he contended.
Charges West "Muffed Case"
Mr.. Maudlin said the entire plan
OF the zoning commission for tho
developments Of the city along spe-
cited lines would be ffnperiled If
this apartment house were allowed,
because it would open the way for
similar infringement on residential
areas In many other sections. It's
construction would be followed i'm.
mediately by that Of other apart
ments abutting on Sixteenth street.
he maintained, and the whole
character OF the neighborhood
would be changed.
Mr.. Maudlin also contended the
property owners did not have a.
faIr hearing in the courts. He
charged Corporation Counsel Yer.
non E. West, who as chief assistant
IN the office at the time appeared
for the Zoning Commission. with
"muffing the case entirely"
None OF the home owners was
called as witness for the Zoning
Commission, which had rezoned
their development and placed it In
a class excluding apartments, Mr..
Maudlin said
| Mr.. West denied he did not press
the case vigorously. He pointed out,
as in most zoning cases, it was
largely a question of law and that
Justice Jennings Bailey visited the
property and went into the case
thoroughly.
Two Attorneys Heard.
Appearing for Harry Poretsky Of
Baltimore, owner of the property on
which the apadtment house is to be
built, Louis Otenberg and Mrs. Bur-
nita Matthews, attorneys, contended
the bill would be unconstitutional
and would set a bad precedent. 1t
would, in effect, place Congress in
a position of overruling the courts,
! they said.
! Mr.. Oottenberg also argued that
passing bill to rezone single piece
OF property would upset all the rul-
ings of the Zoning Commission and
thus would interfere with its gen.
eral plan for the development of the
city.
Mrs. Matthews said Mr.. Poretsky
had invested $4,000 in the prop
erty and had been greatly incon-
venienced by the long fight to pre-
vent him from putting up the build
ing. The construction would cost
a great deal more today, she added,
than if he had been allowed to 20
ahead with it in 1941, as he in.
tended.
Mrs. Matthews also pointed to the
shortage OF apartment sites and the
critical housing situation, adding
that persons who could not afford to
build fine homes were as entitled
to live as those who could. She
said the site was a logical place for
an apartment house and denied it
would damage the properties of
nome owners in the area