Members of the House on Monday waded into the ongoing battle between Congress and Washington over the city’s desire for home rule, passing legislation to eliminate the city’s height restrictions for buildings — if only for penthouses.
Since 1899, Congress has restricted the heights of all buildings in the District of Columbia. The law, altered once in 1910, remains in effect, preventing developers from building any structure taller than 130 feet within Washington’s borders. As such, many of the city’s monuments are widely visible from all over the nation’s capital city and dominate Washington’s skyline (The Atlantic‘s Kaid Benfield mounts an interesting defense of the law, based partially on that fact, here). But critics say that the law has prevented the city from expanding and kept real estate prices high.
The new House legislation passed Monday, which is just three paragraphs long, does little to change that. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., a strong proponent of home rule for the District, offered a partial solution. Currently, some buildings are allowed to breach the height requirements for utility-only penthouses; this bill would allow those areas to be occupied by residents and for architects to construct new penthouses for human occupancy.
In other words, the bill merely takes the 1910 law’s section regarding the construction of floors above roof level and inserts the words “except in the case of a penthouse which is erected to a height of one story of 20 feet or less above the level of the roof….”
The legislation, which passed overwhelmingly with 366 yea votes on Monday, follows a yearlong study Issa requested that was conducted by the National Capital Planning Commission and the D.C. Office of Planning. The penthouse exception is just one of several proposals that came out of the study. Those recommendations, released in November, also included that Congress allow the city to make exceptions to the Height Act in its Comprehensive Plan (which requires congressional approval) and allow Washington to increase its building height based on street width, with a maximum height of 200 feet.
The Washington Post has some fascinating graphical representations of what the city might look like if some of the city’s recommendations were approved by Congress, including the penthouse exception, which you can check out here.
What We're Following See More »
In light of his recent confessions, the speakership of Dennis Hastert is being judged far more harshly. The New York Times' Carl Hulse notes that in hindsight, Hastert now "fares poorly" on a number of fronts, from his handling of the Mark Foley page scandal to "an explosion" of earmarks to the weakening of committee chairmen. "Even his namesake Hastert rule—the informal standard that no legislation should be brought to a vote without the support of a majority of the majority — has come to be seen as a structural barrier to compromise."
Even if "[t]he Republican presidential nomination may be in his sights ... Trump has so far ignored vital preparations needed for a quick and effective transition to the general election. The New York businessman has collected little information about tens of millions of voters he needs to turn out in the fall. He's sent few people to battleground states compared with likely Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, accumulated little if any research on her, and taken no steps to build a network capable of raising the roughly $1 billion needed to run a modern-day general election campaign."
Rep. Dave Young can't even refuse his own paycheck. The Iowa Republican is trying to make a point that if Congress can't pass a budget (it's already missed the April 15 deadline) then it shouldn't be paid. But, he's been informed, the 27th Amendment prohibits him from refusing his own pay. "Young’s efforts to dock his own pay, however, are duck soup compared to his larger goal: docking the pay of every lawmaker when Congress drops the budget ball." His bill to stiff his colleagues has only mustered the support of three of them. Another bill, sponsored by Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN), has about three dozen co-sponsors.
Sixty miles away, in Sandusky, Ohio. "We're pretty bitter about that," said Harmeet Dhillon, vice chairwoman of the California Republican Party. "It sucks to be California, we're like the ugly stepchild. They need us for our cash and our donors, they don't need us for anything else."
Anyone looking forward to seeing some boldfaced names on the client list of the late Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the "DC Madam," will have to wait a little longer. "The Supreme Court announced Monday it would not intervene to allow" the release of her phone records, "despite one of her former attorneys claiming the records are “very relevant” to the presidential election. Though he has repeatedly threatened to release the records if courts do not modify a 2007 restraining order, Montgomery Blair Sibley tells U.S. News he’s not quite sure what he now will do."