Have We Given the Old Georgetown Board Too Much Power Without Enough Responsibility?

Last week the Old Georgetown Board met for its February session. It was the first time they met since early December due to the Board taking a break in January (as it does in August). One of the projects on the Board’s agenda is the proposed office-to-residential conversion of two buildings at the bottom of Thomas Jefferson St.

It was the fifth time the project was brought before the Board, and it won’t be the last. As reported by the Washington Business Journal, the Board refused to approve the designs, as it has on the previous four occasions. So instead of the project getting underway months ago, it remains in limbo because it has failed to satisfy the personal tastes of three presidential appointees.

So despite the fact that the economic future of DC hinges largely on office-to-residential projects proceeding, this one will just sit there until these mandarins are fully satisfied. But don’t bother making an economic argument for advancing this project. The Board has made it clear that that is completely beyond their remit to consider. As WBJ reported, the developer argued that trimming the project down to the size that the board members want would make the project not economically viable. The board’s secretary responded to that argument:

Thomas Luebke, the CFA’s secretary, noted in the meeting economics aren’t considered by the OGB, which is charged under the federal law with preserving the historic fabric of the city’s oldest neighborhood.

“It’s not our concern about cost or any of these other issues,” Luebke said. “Unfortunately we can’t actually, literally consider or really honestly accommodate.”

As every Spiderman fan knows, with great power comes great responsibility. It appears that in this situation, that relationship has been severed. We have given the Old Georgetown Board completely unaccountable power over the shape and use of the real estate in Georgetown but ask it only to be responsible for the nebulous (and often artificial) gauze of historic preservation. So we have, in this situation, a totally unremarkable and unhistoric late 20th century office building that is screaming to be converted to a use more productive to the future health of our neighborhood and city, and it is being held up because none of that matters to the board.

One response to this situation would be to plead with the board to take more responsibility for the power it wields. But would it really make any more sense to have three trained architects make complex economic or political decisions on top of their design input? Probably not. That’s why I think it’s useful to look back at the Old Georgetown Act itself. Here, go ahead and read it. It’s not that long. The key part of it is as follows:

…the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, before issuing any permit for the construction, alteration, reconstruction, or razing of any building within said Georgetown district described in section I shall refer the plans to the National Commission of Fine Arts for a report as to the exterior architectural features, height, appearance, color, and texture of the materials of exterior construction which is subject to public view from a public highway. The National Commission of Fine Arts shall report promptly to said Commissioners of the District of Columbia its recommendations, including such changes, if any, as in the judgment of the Commission are necessary and desirable to preserve the historic value of said Georgetown district. The said Commissioners shall take such actions as in their judgment are right and proper in the circumstances: Provided, That, if the said Commission of Fine Arts fails to submit a report on such plans within forty-five days, its approval thereof shall be assumed and a permit may be issued.

In short, every building permit for Georgetown shall be reviewed by the Commission of Fine Arts (the parent body of the OGB) and a report passed on by the CFA/OGB to the city government to do with as it sees fit. Crucially, as the law is written, the OGB can “reject” a project all it wants, but the city is not under any obligation to actually follow the decision. It is essentially just an advisory opinion. The board has no actual de jure authority or power. It is all just a product of custom that the city has granted it de facto authority and power. And in some circumstances, like the office building conversion, that de facto power came without requisite responsibility.

(And that’s not even considering the fact that the clear language of the law states that the CFA/OGB will make a recommendation within 45 days, and if it doesn’t the city can just assume approval. If that aspect of the law were not being so flagrantly ignored this project would have been approved by DC months ago.)

I know many residents, particularly those active in the community, are perfectly happy with this disconnect. They prefer it to be exceptionally hard to get things built in Georgetown, and if it takes an architectural star chamber to achieve that, then so be it. Better to reject 99 worthy and necessary projects than to let one unworthy project get built. But if you are someone who is concerned about the future of the city and the role Georgetown has in that future, you may wonder if we shouldn’t be tailoring what power we give to unelected boards to the responsibility we get in return.