D.C.’s push to open a homeless shelter in the wealthy West End neighborhood seemed to be going entirely too well based on the history of such projects. Predictably, the city now has another hurdle to clear.
The same group of anonymous property owners and businesses that sued over these shelter plans this summer has mounted a new legal challenge to the project, according to court records. The West End DC Community Association filed the suit against the city in D.C. Superior Court on Oct. 27, claiming that the District “blatantly ignored and/or intentionally circumvented well-established DC zoning laws and procedures” in pursuing the project.
The group withdrew its first case in late August, as it sought to block the city’s efforts to buy a former George Washington University dorm for conversion into a first-of-its-kind shelter for people with medical conditions and mixed-gender adult families. Once the city closed on its purchase of the property, located at 1127 New Hampshire Ave. NW, many of the group’s arguments about a lack of notice and other alleged procedural missteps looked moot. This time around, the so-called community association wants to block the facility from actually opening, which was originally scheduled to happen before the end of the year.
“Our city’s homeless population deserves a facility that is carefully thought-out and planned, rather than hastily thrown together because of the government’s fiscal desperation,” the group wrote in the suit. The city’s Department of Human Services, which will manage the shelter, should it ever open, declined to comment, citing the pending litigation.
The attorney representing the association, Scott Morrison of the international firm Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment from Loose Lips. But he is not a stranger to the issue, previously writing a letter to the D.C. Council on the topic on behalf of a condo association at a building around the corner from the dorm, currently known as the Aston. Rumors have flown for months around the West End-Foggy Bottom community that Morrison would be involved in another suit against the project after that letter emerged (and he hinted as much in an interview with the Washington Post this summer).
It’s not clear whether Morrison’s old condo association clients are related to the community association, described only in the suit as “an unincorporated civic association whose members and contributors are individual residents and businesses that reside or have their principal place of business in the West End neighborhood of the District, within very close proximity to the Aston property.” The group previously hired the pricey firm ArentFox Schiff and seemed to be working with one of its top lobbyists, former At-Large Councilmember David Grosso, on the project. Lobbying filings suggest that condo owners at a different building, 22 West, had also hired Grosso and the firm, so it seemed a natural connection that they were also backing the suit. The condo association’s leaders haven’t responded to repeated requests for comment.
Whoever is behind the suit, they claim in the filing that the project would “irreparably damage the rights of the owners and occupants of properties in the surrounding neighborhood who make up the membership roll of the association, and severely diminish their use and enjoyment of such properties.” They argue that the city improperly circumvented zoning laws by seeking to construct a facility with medical uses in a residential area, and that officials should have secured permissions from zoning officials before moving ahead with the project. (DHS officials have previously said in public meetings that they believe the shelter meets all appropriate zoning requirements and secured a letter from the city’s zoning administrator saying as much. The lawsuit claims that letter was based on “incomplete, stale, and outright inaccurate information.”)
The suit also rehashes old arguments from the previous case challenging the Aston: that the city rushed through its approval process without adequately consulting the area’s advisory neighborhood commission, ANC 2A, about the project. However, ANC leaders have consistently denied those claims, noting that they held multiple lengthy public meetings about the shelter.
Before this suit was filed, the ANC had, in fact, made some halting progress toward standing up the shelter, despite the nasty fights that have previously divided commissioners.
That’s in part because Joel Causey, a shelter skeptic who represents the area where it would be located on the ANC, has taken a recent step back from his duties, citing family issues. He’s been a frequent antagonist for the shelter’s proponents (drawing accusations of bullying and even assault) so his absence has helped make meetings a bit less contentious.
After weeks of acrimonious debate, the ANC recently approved two nominees to a community advisory group meant to guide the development of the shelter. (That includes Chris Labas, a property manager for yet another nearby condo association, who previously swore he would never take on such a role if Causey was still involved in the process.) This “community advisory team” will also include city representatives, homelessness experts, and community members appointed by Ward 2 Councilmember Brooke Pinto, who led the creation of the group on the ANC’s request.
Trupti Patel, another ANC who supports the project, tells LL that officials were awaiting more information from the city about the community group and the shelter’s progress before the lawsuit was filed. With yet another lawsuit to resolve, it’s unclear when the city will be able to award a contract to an operator for the shelter and actually get its doors open.
Similar lawsuits against other shelters around the city generally haven’t been successful, but they have undoubtedly slowed the District’s progress in opening such facilities in all eight wards and getting people off the streets. There’s every indication that this group’s trumped-up concerns about zoning and property values will have a similar effect on the Aston. A judge won’t review the case until a Jan. 26 hearing on the matter.
This story has been updated.