Evening star., 1946-07-09


], Alb Ninth street NV, are
TX, while Ray E. Wird, jr., 2123
IN Aiken, is, 4716 Eighth street
yes. Star Staff Photo.
Foes Of Apartment
In Crestwood Press
Congress for Ban
The tive-year-old controversy ovel
construction of an apart
ment house at Sixteenth and Shep-
herd streets NV. now pending in
the Supreme Court, will be pressed
before Congress even during these
last days before the Congressional
recess.
The Crestwood Citizens Associa-
ton, which opposes construction OF
the apartment, is hoping for action
by both the House and the Senate
prior to adjournment for the sum-
mer, but the association is being
fought at every step by Harry Poret-
sky, defending his right to put up
the building.
The property now Is zoned for
construction of an apartment house
Latest development came yester-
day when representatives of the
CrestWood association asked a fur
ther hearing from the House Dis
trict Committee on a bill which
would prohibit the building. They
were told the House had passed
such a measure once and sent il
to the Senate, where it died. There
fore. the committee preferred te
wait until the Senate acted. Fur.
thermore, it was pointed out, an ap-
peal by the citizens still is pending
in the Supreme Court.
Testimony In Subcommittee.
Meanwhile a Senate District sub.
committee has under consideration
testimony from a hearing June q
on a bill, which would require re.
zoning to prohibit the apartment.
Senator Johnston, Democrat, O.
South Carolina, subcommittee chair.
man, said today it was uncertain
when his committee could make 8
report to the District Committee or
the measure. Senator Young, Re.
publican, of North Dakota, and Sen.
ator McCarran, Democrat, of Ne.
Vaoa, subcommittee members hav.
not completed their review of tn,
testimony in the record, he said.
The history of the case, blow b,
blow, goes something like this:
The property. wooded tract o
2.07 acres just beyond so-calle,
Tiger Bridge on the west side O
Sixteenth street, originally was zonet
for five-story apartment house con.
struction. Mr.. Poretsky proposed tt
build on the site.
Application Was Denied.
Mr.. Poretsky asked the Board O
Zoning Adjustment in July, 1941, fol
variance" in regulations to per.
nit him to put up an eight-stor,
apartment building. The neighbor,
hood therefore was notified of hi,
proposal. His application for tn.
variance was denied. but the prop.
erty still was available for a five.
story building.
Alter protest by the Crestwoot
citizens, the Zoning Commission il
November. 1941, by vote of 3 to 2
changed the status from residential
A to A restricted, which would bar
the apartment.
In February, 1912. Mr.. Poretsk,
went into District Court for a pre.
liminary injunction against official,
concerned to halt enforcement O.
the rezoning order. Justice Jenning
Bailey ruled in April, 1943. in favo,
Of Mr.. Poretsky, charging the zonin,
Commissions order of November
l941, was unreasonable, arbitrar,
and capricious." His order vacated
the rezoning. order and the Zonint
Commission promptly complied witt
the court order, putting the trac
back in its previous status to permi
the apartment house. The commits
sion also decided not to appeal from
the decision of Justice Bailey.
Citizens Take Fight to Congress.
Then the citizens went both t,
the courts and to Congress.
A bill to force rezoning to forbi,
the apartment house construction
was introduced in the House. TIL
House passed the measure, sent j
to the Senate, but there it died.
The citizens appealed to the Cour
of Appeals from the Bailey ruling
on the right of protesting citizens t,
intervene in support of the Zonin,
Commission decision. The court up
held that right without passing OF
the merits of the case itself. MI
Ploretsky asked for a writ of certio
rari, but the Supreme Court refused
to review the case.
The citizens went back to the an
pellate court on the merits of tn,
case. The Court of Appeals affirme,
the Bailey decision upholding tn,
right to erect the apartment.
Then the citizens asked the Su
preme Court for a writ of certiorar
to review the merits of the case
This appeal still is pending. Blu
c. v. Maudlin of the citizens asso.
citation, told the House District Com
mittee yesterday the Supreme Cour
cannot be expected to rule on thi
petition until the October term
when Congress may have adjourned
Therefore, he urged further hearin,
on a new bill now pending befor'
the committee.
Would Be Opening Wedge.
Mr.. Maudlin said the citizens "ar,
somewhat worried" because unde
the present status "the apartment
house could be constructed" H,
explained this would be an openin,
wedge to building of additiona
apartments in the vicinity.
The District Commissioners hay,
opposed legislation designed to ba
the apartment house. Their posi-