It’s unfortunate, if not entirely surprising, that D.C.’s well-intentioned plan to buy an old dorm and convert it into a homeless shelter in the tony West End is now facing a legal challenge. But the sheer number of D.C. power brokers that have come out of the woodwork to keep the poor out of a rich neighborhood makes this case unusual.
There has been opposition from neighbors, of course, ever since Mayor Muriel Bowser’s administration announced plans to buy the building from George Washington University earlier this summer. And the classist concerns raised about a potential increase in crime and decrease in property values are hardly anything different from those that spring up in other neighborhoods where Bowser has sought to build similar facilities. Loose Lips suspects the difference here is that the worried residents have a bit more cachet than your average NIMBYs, considering the wealth and power concentrated in the area.
The identities of the property owners behind the group challenging the project in court, dubbed the “West End DC Community Association,” are hidden—likely deliberately so. But they sure have a lot of powerful allies in their bid to block the $27.5 million sale of the building, located at 1129 New Hampshire Avenue NW.
For one, they’re represented by ArentFox Schiff, a leading D.C. law firm that doesn’t usually concern itself with such parochial matters. And that has fueled rumors about the involvement of At-Large Councilmember-turned-ArentFox lobbyist David Grosso, who was spotted sitting in on a recent Advisory Neighborhood Commission meeting on the subject. It’s unclear how or why the matter drew his attention, considering he doesn’t live nearby, and he styled himself as a champion for the little guy in his time on the Council. Grosso tells LL via email that “we are not authorized to comment at this time,” and the other ArentFox attorneys who filed the case similarly declined to comment.
Incredibly, LL hears that ArentFox isn’t the only big-name law firm involved. Scott Morrison, a partner with the international firm Katten, also weighed in against the project on behalf of a condo association at a building around the corner from the soon-to-be-former dorm. He penned a broadside on the topic to Ward 2 Councilmember Brooke Pinto on July 6, according to a copy forwarded to LL. Many of his arguments against the project foreshadow those raised in the lawsuit. “The District must evaluate the economic impact that the addition of a non-congregate shelter might have on the surrounding neighborhood,” Morrison wrote.
It’s entirely possible that all this anti-shelter advocacy is connected—Morrison didn’t respond to a request for comment—but it also wouldn’t surprise LL if there are two different groups of wealthy neighbors itching to block this project. It seems the residents of West End just can’t stand the notion that they may, someday, have to see a person who used to be homeless.
“These people are basically just throwing a temper tantrum over an idea that is bold, innovative, and will save lives,” says West End/Foggy Bottom Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner Trupti Patel, noting that the shelter would be the first facility in D.C. to admit people with acute medical conditions, couples, and mixed-gender adult families. “They want to George Wallace this area.”
Like other supporters of the shelter plan, Patel suspects that many of these wealthy opponents have tried to stay out of the spotlight “because they want to save face publicly.”
Consider that the West End DC Community Association backing the lawsuit appears to have been invented out of whole cloth, created for the purpose of making opponents seem more legitimate and connected to the grassroots than they actually are. (This is not exactly a new tactic in the world of D.C. development, particularly in Ward 2.) The group’s complaint, filed July 18, says only that it is an “unincorporated civic association whose members all are located in the West End of the District within very close proximity” but doesn’t list any other details about its members. Unlike other community groups organized as nonprofits, the organization doesn’t have to file any public documents about its members or financial backers. The group’s listed address in court documents is simply ArentFox’s K Street NW office building.
The group’s name even seems deliberately crafted to invite conflation with the West End Civic Association, a well-established organization in the neighborhood. Secretary-Treasurer Barbara Kahlow tells LL that her group had nothing to do with the lawsuit, and she has no idea who filed it.
It’s no more clear precisely who is behind the letter from Morrison, the Katten attorney. He wrote in the missive to Pinto that he represents Square 37 Common Area Association Inc., and described it as “the community association representing hundreds of residents in the immediate area of the Aston building.” But he didn’t identify the condo building where those residents live.
D.C. records show that the company shares a registered address with the major development firm Eastbanc and lists its CEO, Anthony Lanier, among its officers. Lanier’s well-known firm developed the Westlight condo complex around the corner from the proposed shelter as part of its overhaul of the old West End Neighborhood Library. Deed records also show the Square 37 company was involved in transactions involving the Westlight building.
Lanier is an influential figure in D.C. politics (he’s an old Jack Evans pal, after all) but LL questions whether he’d be working with Morrison directly after the pair spent years tied up in court over different properties in the area. A source once told the Washington Business Journal that a 2010 dispute between the two sides had turned into a “death match.” (Lanier did not respond to a request for comment.)
The interests of Morrison’s clients may align with Lanier’s own, however, considering Morrison wrote to Pinto that they have a “unique perspective on the harm that the addition of a shelter might have on the demand for and value of nearby properties.”
“A hit to neighborhood property values would be devastating not only to residents and businesses in West End but also to the District government itself,” Morrison wrote, citing the impact of declining property values on the city’s budget. (DCist also found emails where Matthew Pestronk, president of real estate development group Post Brothers Apartments, encouraged fellow developers to lobby against the shelter on similar grounds.)
It’s a good thing, then, that Vice President Kamala Harris and Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff got out in time. The couple sold their condo in the building for a cool $1.85 million in 2021 (a slight improvement on the $1.7 million they paid in 2017). LL’s quick spin through deed records revealed an all-too-predictable mix of doctors, lobbyists, government officials, and even a Newsmax columnist among current residents of the building set to feel those “devastating” effects of a dip in property values.
Jim Malec, the chair of the pertinent ANC 2A, is frustrated that these wealthy opponents have tried to “co-opt the ANC” into their concerns about the shelter. Both the complaint and Morrison’s letter based many of their objections on process, claiming that the ANC 2A, which represents the area where the shelter would be located, wasn’t given adequate time to review the city’s plans, or enough information about them. But Malec says he’s never had any such concerns about the project, and the full commission voted overwhelmingly to support it back in June.
In fact, ANC Yannik Omictin, who represents single member district 2A01, says he heard rumors about possible legal action weeks ago, and stressed to his fellow commissioners “how important it was that we clearly declare our support for the project so [the plaintiffs] can’t use the ANC in their crusade against the unhoused.” That’s not to say the commission has been unanimously supportive. Joel Causey, who recently stepped down as ANC 2A’s chair over revelations that he concealed his past as a registered sex offender, has been a particularly vocal opponent. But Malec sees this as a clear effort by anti-shelter forces to appear closer to the community than they actually are.
“We’ve held 10 hours of public meetings on this matter, largely at the request of the community,” Malec says. “Frankly, if we were given more time, we would not have operated any differently, because we conducted ourselves in accordance with the timeline set forth by the law.”
At the end of the day, the lawsuit will probably fail. GW’s lawyers have asked a judge for the chance to intervene in the case on the city’s behalf and countersued the opponents for trying to interfere with the building’s sale. Similar lawsuits against shelter plans in wards 3 and 5 were not successful, either, considering that such “quality of life” concerns are both factually baseless and legally worthless.
But this episode sends a clear message that some of D.C.’s wealthiest, most powerful residents will use that wealth and power to try and push this project elsewhere. As Malec sees it, “the entire conversation is very clearly centered around this idea that because we are a wealthy neighborhood, we just shouldn’t have to deal with it, and they should build it somewhere else.” Any opponent determined enough can find all manner of bureaucratic levers to gum up the works.
Bowser has made her share of missteps on this issue, but one of her most laudable goals in office has been her effort to spread shelters across all eight wards. That ensures that unhoused people have access to services where ever they may be in the city, but also that neighborhoods across the District share in the effort to help residents most in need.
Yet, time and again, when Bowser’s efforts have touched those with the most to share, they have loudly proclaimed that they are being victimized. That the city’s liberal elite so regularly finds itself on the same side as reactionary figures like, say, Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley’s very online communications director tells you all you need to know about race and class in America’s cities.
“I think the government can protect quality of life and property values, and the needs of the most vulnerable at the same time,” Malec says. “But if we are forced to make a choice between those two things, I absolutely think that we should protect the needs of those who are most vulnerable. We have an opportunity to provide housing to a large number of people who desperately need it.”