Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1956-02-28
Foqqy Bottom Plan

resident as well, ana l would
like to reaffirm my support
for urban renewal in the
Foggy Bottom Urban Renewal
Area as it was REDEEMED re-
Gently by the District Com
missionerS. In so doing I
would like to point out that
/ join with my neighbors. the
residents and owners OF indi-
vidual dwellings in Foggy
Bottom, who have recently re-
stated their vigorous support
of urban renewal through
their own organization. the
Foggy Bottom Restoration
Association.
We are opposed to the new
so-called Foggy Bottom Tax
payers Protective Association
because its executive COM
mittee represents the very
interests threatening to de-
stroy the restoration and re-
Mobilization progress which
has been made in Foggy
Bottom through private initia-
tive and private capital. The
efforts of these protective"
interests in Foggy Bottom are
directed toward commercializ-
ing this burgeoning residential
area, thereby re-establishing
another kind OF blight just
as the area was taking q new
lease on lite.
The support which the new
protective" association was
able to generate at their re-
cent meeting comes from the
confusion they have sown by
joining two separate urban
renewal areas. the Foggy
Bottom Urban Renewal Area
and the George Washington
University Urban Renewal
Area, into one big lot. They
have thereby confused two
very separate issues. urban re-
newal of the slum rehabilita-
ton type (Foggy Bottom) and
urban renewal of a type phi
marty providing assistance to
a university George WASH
ingtonD. While they have en-
ticed residents of the GNU
area TO assist them in what
they are attempting to char
acterize as a joint battle
against the Entertainments OF
a university, the residents OF
the Foggy Bottom Urban Re-
newal Area stand unalterably
opposed to the real estate
interests. represented by the
protective" association. who
have purchased parcels OF
property for commercial spec
ulation.
The claim that urban re-
newal plans have caused a
blight in building progress in
Foggy Bottom is absurd and
these real estate interests know
it. Houses are being remodeled
at the same fantastic rate
that has characterized the de-
velopment of Foggy Bottom
for the last two years. Now
that the threat of commercial
ization has abated somewhat,
due TO the urban renewal plan.
this pace seems actually to
have accelerated.
In fact the main problem.
as was indicated in a recent
coming adjustment hearing. is
whether these protective" in
terests themselves will dis
courage building progress in
Foggy Bottom. At least one
member of the new "protec-
tive" association supported a
request for a parking lot in
the very midst of redevelop-
ment work. where owners Of
adjacent property have reno
deled houses or have immedi-
ate plans for so doing. Had this
adjustment TO present resi-
dental coming been permitted
by the Zoning. Board. 1t would
have been a vital blow to
progress in our area and the
protective" association could
have been counted on to sup
port other "blighting" requests
for parking lots, etc.
The issue before the people
Of Washington is whether this
increasingly attractive area
shall continue to be developed
with private capital for pri-
marily residential units or
whether it should become a
commercialized. high-density
area.
The people of Washington,
and the residents of the GNU
area particularly, should noe
be misled by cries of Inter
ference" with private capital.
Private capital is not sup
planted by urban renewal but
is rather solicited and assisted.
The protective" association
represents interests wishing
to commercialize both areas,
and If they have their way the
residents Of these two areas