Evening star., 1954-11-23
Spot Zoninq Protested

AlC &1lDGAA E1UAA1kAS AO11AA41loSkOkl4
composed Of the three District COM
missioners, the Architect Of the Cap
itol. and the Director Of the National
Park Service. recently approved an
amendment to local zoning regulations
which permits the installation Of shop
ping facilities within apartments lo-
Gated in residential areas. Certain con-
ditions must be met but these condi-
tions are negligible.
This amendment lowers zoning re-
strictions and sanctions "spot zoning"
which heretofore has been considered
a violation of sound zoning practice.
It establishes a precedent that is bound
to bring new and greater demands for
lower zoning rules. This amendment
rings the death knell for the values of
residential property adjacent to apart
ments.
This amendment was vigorously op-
posed by several organized civic groups
representing thousands Of property own
ers and citizens. Its passage was urged,
however, by apartment house owners,
their lawyers and architects who stand
to reap substantial benefits to the de-
triment of individual property owners.
Many large apartments have been
permitted to locate in residential sec
tions. Once located they proceed to
break down zoning restrictions in the
area. AS result property values de-
cline and individual home owners are
forced to sustain large property losses.
No longer does the term restricted resi-
Dental" have meaning. An apartment
is commercial enterprise and should
be located in commercial section
along with hotels and stores No sooner
are they constructed than they clamor
for commercial adjuncts, such as stores
and restaurants. Apparently, it is the
opinion of tenants of apartments that
they merit special privileges. Why
should an individual upon moving into
an apartment become unable to walk.
drive, use public transportation, or take
advantage of delivery facilities furn-
iShed by our merchants? Are these in
dividuals who are more or less transient
more deserving of consideration than
individual property owners who invest
their life savings In homes and strive
to make our city a better place for
themselves and their children? Appar-
emily, the Board of Zoning Commission
believes they are.
The only reason advanced at the
hearings was the convenience" of the
tenants. The board was not concerned
over convenience" of individual home
owners or the property losses which
inevitably result from the commercial
ization of a residential section.
The Indifference of the merchants
and businessmen to the installation of
shopping facilities in apartments is in
comprehensive in view of their hue
and cry over losing business from other
factors.
One wonders why the Zoning Com
mission, the zoning Adjustment Board,
and other regulatory bodies hold pub
lie hearings. Property owners and
ciyic-minded citizens take time from
their business and work to present
their views before these boards. If a
decision is won by them, they are
forced to go through the same ordeal
time and time again to defend their
principles. Then the usual payoff is
that it is decided that some special
legislation must be provided to enable
the proponents to accomplish their
aims, This was the case in, regard to
this 'tspot zoning" amendment which
stems from the unsuccessful bid by the
Berkshire Apartment. 4201 Massachu-
sets avenue.
What are conscientious and public
spirited citizens and home owners who
give unselfishly of their time and ef-
fort, without the thought Of compen-
satory gain, to think of such proce-
dures? Why hold public hearings If
the minds of our officials are already
made up as they were in the case of
this amendment? Why not advise cit
izens when they purchase homes in
Washington that their property values
may and will be considerably impaired
by the lowering of zoning restrictions
in order that speculative builders may
be satisfied? What is the purpose of
these public hearings? Are individual
property owners to be treated as chill
dren who are given lollypop to quiet
them for the moment? Let's have the
answer to this riddle if there is one.
We are property owners, taxpayers and
private citizens interested solely in the
preservation and future of our city and
our efforts are entirely gratuitous. We
have invested heavily in our homes.
Is this investment to be destroyed? We
believe it will be. What is the answer?
Mr.. and Mrs. Walter A. Sellers,
DIR. and Mrs. III. X. Babbitt,
Mr.. and Mrs. T. N. Sheehan,
DIR. and Mrs. T. Ferwerda,
Cnl