Opinion ID: 2194614
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Changing Priorities

Text: After the NCI Act became effective in July 1996, and anticipating the transfer of title to the Islands within the next six months, IDC and the District of Columbia began to renegotiate the Lease. On July 25, 1996, IDC tendered to the District a draft amended lease. Its cover letter stated, [T]he Original Lease was based on the [Transfer of Jurisdiction]. Now, with the enactment of the NCI Act, the Original Lease must be amended to conform to the new NCI Act and otherwise to reflect the current situation. After many letters back and forth, with both parties proposing changes to the 1993 Lease, the District and IDC agreed on a revised lease in September 1997. The Council of the District of Columbia approved the revised lease on December 16, 1997. D.C. Council Resolution 12-336, 44 D.C.Reg. 7749 (1997). It then was submitted for approval by the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority (the Control Board), because 1997 was a control year for the District. [3] After a lengthy period of review, the Control Board rejected the revised lease on March 5, 1999, because it was not consistent with the financial plan and budget nor in the interests of the District. On August 18, 1998, while the parties to the revised lease were awaiting a final decision, Mayor Barry wrote to the Chairman of the Control Board stressing the need for immediate favorable action. . . . The Mayor stated that after two legal reviews of the status of the 1993 Lease, [t]he resulting assumption is that the [1993] lease remains in effect, even if the [revised] lease is not approved by the [Control Board]. When the Control Board made its decision to reject the revised lease, a member of its staff stated for the record that [t]he original lease is dated April of 1993, and it will remainthis resolution and order of the board will not affect that lease. However, her next sentence reports that [t]here is a serious question whether that lease is now in effect or at least if the developer is not in default under the lease. On May 10, 1999, soon after the revised lease was rejected (and after Marion Barry had left office), the District entered into an agreement with Maryland officials regarding environmental cleanup of the Anacostia River Basin. Although the goals of the agreement are broadly stated, it anticipates the restoration and creation of wetlands and other measures that are inconsistent with development of the Islands. District officials recognized that this agreement would preclude the Project from going forward. On June 7, 1999, the District of Columbia notified NCI and IDC that the 1993 Lease ha[d] been terminated as of January 16, 1997. The Lease was terminated on that date upon the signing of the quitclaim deed. . . . The letter also claimed that even if the quitclaim deed had not terminated the Lease, NCI and IDC were in default under the terms of the Lease. The District sent another letter on September 8, 1999, insisting that NCI and IDC quit and surrender possession of the Islands no later than thirty (30) days after receipt of this notice to quit. The notice to quit was based on IDC's asserted failure to cure the events of default named in the June 7 letter. On October 7, 1999, IDC vacated the Islands under protest, and it filed this lawsuit on the same day.