Case Studies

A Surprise Announcement in Washington D.C.'s Columbia Heights Neighborhood

On a morning in early March 2000, the residents of 1418 W Street, NW, a 24-unit apartment building, awoke to a notice posted on their front door by the District of Columbia government. It stated that their building had been deemed uninhabitable and it would be closed within two weeks. The closure notice was one of five posted on multi-family apartment buildings that day as part of a crackdown on approximately 50 "hot properties" that the District had determined contained excessive housing code violations. Eighty percent of the hot properties and all five condemned properties were within walking distance of a newly opened Metro subway station, in the heart of a rapidly gentrifying neighborhood. The neighborhood, Columbia Heights, houses the majority of the District's Latino and Vietnamese populations. The targeted buildings were mostly occupied by Latino and Vietnamese tenants. As succinctly noted by one of the tenants, these condemnation actions were contributing to gentrification that was pushing the Latino population out of the city. "Why do minorities always have to be excluded?" asked Carmen Soto, a nun who lives in a condemned

This was not the first time Latinos of the Columbia Heights neighborhoods faced the threat of being dislocated from their homes. Discriminatory code enforcement against Latinos has a long history in the District, but this action was particularly egregious. In the wake of the 1991 Mount Pleasant riots, the United States Commission on Civil Rights held hearings on the riots' underlying causes. They heard testimony by the Latino Civil Rights Task Force that the eviction of tenants in response to housing code violations had a disproportionate impact on the Hispanic community in the Columbia Heights area.

The District's actions continue the cycle of slum clearance and urban renewal that displaced African American residents and destroyed vibrant communities in Georgetown and in southwest neighborhoods from the 1940s through the 1960s. The condemnation of buildings in largely Latino neighborhoods, also mirrored urban renewal projects around the country that have resulted in increased residential segregation.

The residents of 1418 W Street, however, did not simply accede to the District's attempts to gentrify their neighborhood and close their building. Instead, with community support they mobilized all available resources in an attempt to preserve and improve their homes and neighborhood. The tenants or 1418 W Street turned the District's code enforcement into a powerful tool for the community. Four months after being faced with homelessness, the tenants had become the owners of their building, with $300,000 to begin the process of rehabilitating their homes.

Strategies Emerge

The W Street tenants were forced to use the code enforcement tool defensively as their homes were being threatened. The tenants and the community, both of whom were taken by surprise by the District's actions, first had to organize. The community organizations that regularly worked with the tenants, the Central American Resource Center (CARECEN) and Asian-American LEAD (AA LEAD) organized the tenants. They convened meetings with the concerned tenants, made various resources available, presented options, and gave the tenants the power to determine how they would proceed. By necessity, the tenants quickly transformed from a collection of individual families that happened to share an address into a single group that shared thinking and spoke with consistency. Although, an outside force-the closure notice-was the impetus for forming the group, the structure was shaped internally. Tenants chose their own leaders, their own structure, and their own priorities. Almost immediately the tenants of 1418 W Street became an association pursuant to the requirements of the city government with incorporators, officers, and bylaws. This allowed lawyers to represent the association and established a legal entity that could negotiate with the District government.

As the tenants coalesced, CARECEN and AA LEAD identified the political, legal, economic, and other resources in the community that could assist in efforts to preserve 1418 W Street, including:

• community organizations;
• community leaders;
• politicians;
• local and national civil rights organizations and advocates; and
• legal services organizations.

These individuals and groups immediately identified two complimentary strategies, one political and one legal.

Political and Legal Acumen

The political strategy. Significant efforts were taken to raise awareness of what was

Eventually, Mayor Anthony A. Williams bowed to the pressure and met with tenants and community leaders. He tried to say the right things, but most were unconvinced as the city continued to press on with the condemnation of the buildings. Lora Mitchell, 10, came to the meeting with her mother, Angela, who started crying when she stood up and told the mayor that for the first time in her life she was scared that her family would be homeless. "It's sad," Lora said. "I think we are afraid we are going to become street people. All my stuff--my stickers, my bed--will be put out on the street." Tenants and their advocates used every method possible to highlight the District's disregard for the tenants and their homes. Tenants gathered at the St. Augustine School on V Street NW and sang gospel songs, performed skits and passed out newspaper clippings about the city's desire to spend $1 million so the National Zoo could obtain a pair of giant pandas from the Chinese government. They chanted, "Housing, not bears."

The legal strategy. Soon after organizing and incorporating, the tenants decided to file a civil rights lawsuit against the District for discriminatory enforcement of its housing code. The lawsuit further increased the pressure on the District. They also filed a lawsuit against the landlords for their failure to do repairs. Tenants began withholding rent, filed a rent petition with the rent administrator, and considered filing affirmative claims against the landlords in landlord/tenant court for the landlords' failure to meet their obligations under the rental contracts.

A growing chorus of voices asked if the District was truly interested in code enforcement to ensure safe habitable buildings. If so, advocates began to call for less harmful enforcement measures, especially criminal prosecution of the landlords. U.S. District Court Judge , James Robertson expressed his views: "These are people with lives and homes and children and schools," Robertson told the city's attorneys. "You are basically saying, as I hear it, that it's okay to have them leave their bags packed at the door, waiting for a stay of execution every 30 days." Eventually the District listened and began prosecuting the 1418 W Street landlords. This began a critical period of three-way negotiations among the tenants, the District , and the landlords.

The Negotiations . The District sought to quell the legal and political attacks on its attempts to close 1418 W Street and other buildings. At the same time, the landlords sought to avoid being criminally prosecuted for failing to maintain their building. The tenants offered a win-win solution: that the District drop its charges against the landlords in exchange for the owners relinquishing the building to the tenants and providing them with sufficient funds to ensure rehabilitation. The idea was attractive to the District as the tenants would be responsible owners that would ensure compliance with the housing code. Preserving the building as affordable housing would answer the critics that were saying the city was merely functioning as tool for the big developers who wanted the poor and minority tenants cleared from the rapidly gentrifying area. The idea was attractive to the landlords because they would avoid criminal prosecution (at substantial but not excessive cost). In addition, landlords were afforded a way to join the "good guys" by "donating" the building and money to the community. The biggest winners, of course, were the tenants, having gone from imminent closure of their building to home ownership in a few months.

Accomplishments

The strategy worked. In August , 2000, 1418 W Street was transferred to the tenants' association for $1 and the landlords' contributed $300,000 toward the rehabilitation of the building. This success became a rallying point in other efforts to fight the gentrification process in the District's Latino neighborhoods. The owners of 1418 W Street and other tenant owners in the neighborhood have resisted significant pressures from for-profit developers to sell their building to allow the creation of luxury condominiums. These buildings remain as examples of how the forces of gentrification can be resisted. The Columbia Heights building is "a model for what ought to be done with slum properties" in the District, said Council member Jim Graham.

Blocks away, the tenants of 1611 Park Road, one of the targeted "hot properties," put extensive pressure on the landlord through withholding rent, filing affirmative actions against him, and pursuing rent control board actions. Eventually, the landlord was unable to meet his loan payments and was forced into foreclosure. The tenants purchased the building at foreclosure and have transferred title to a nonprofit developer to create affordable housing for the original tenants. Although community resources are slim, other tenants have formed associations and are attempting to follow the 1418 W Street model of by using the District's code enforcement powers to force ownership out of the hand of the current landlords.

This success of 1418 W Street demonstrated that tenants were not simply subject to the whims of landlords, the city, or even powerful economic forces. Now when there is a crisis in ownership of an affordable multi-family apartment building, a new possibility exists- tenant ownership.

Keys to Success

Code enforcement worked effectively at 1418 W Street because a crisis caused quick mobilization of the tenants, their community, and allies. The voices condemning the District's actions could not be ignored, and the District needed a success story to affirm its good intentions. The community came forth with a successful plan to benefit the tenants and the long-term good of the community. The District seized upon the plan as a great public relations gain. Ironically, when tenants of 1418 W Street took possession of their building, District officials held a press conference in front of the building that they had condemned only three months earlier.

Challenges

The greatest challenge for the tenants of 1418 W Street was maintaining the delicate balance among the District, the landlords, and themselves. However, the political and legal pressure to get something done ensured that each party would maintain the balance until something was accomplished.

Gaining ownership of the building was a major step, but the development process will be a long, hard road. "I felt very happy and satisfied with what happened because this apartment will be ours, and it will serve as a future home for our daughters," said resident Blanca Alvarez. "The most difficult thing is we don't know where we will get the loan to renovate the building, how long it will take and how long we'll have to be out. We won the first battle, but now we need to start the fight." It took (and continues to take) substantial efforts to maintain the cohesion necessary in the association to move forward with development of the building. "To take on the role of a co-owner is very difficult," said Anabel Avalos, a homemaker who is treasurer of the 1418 W Street Tenants' Association. "There are disagreements in our discussions-the expenses, what will we do, what will it cost.

Some development capacity exists in the community and the 1418 W Street experience is further building that capacity. As the tenants explore the options of developing the building as a low-income rental, a limited equity cooperative, or a condominium, the significant resources necessary to develop and manage the building are apparent. The tenants received monies, though insufficient for the redevelopment. The community organizations will have to turn outside the community to find experience and skills the community has not yet developed.

Future Plans

Code enforcement will continue to be a central part of the fight to preserve affordable housing in the District's predominantly Latino neighborhoods. The District continues to close buildings under the guise of code enforcement and the tenants and community must work to ensure that buildings return to responsible owners who will preserve affordable housing.