June 13, 2006
Georgetown Neighborhoods in the Midst of a Crackdown
The city hasn't forgotten about the October 2004 death of Georgetown student Daniel Rigby. WTOP reports today that owners of residences in the neighborhood where Rigby's apartment caught on fire are in the "midst of a crackdown," with D.C. Consumer and Regulatory Affairs officials nearly a third of the way through 91 houses targeted for possible housing code violations.
Initial reports concluded that Rigby's basement apartment contained faulty wiring, which provoked calls for inspections for nearby homes. Further investigations into the case, however, revealed that the fire started in an area where the student had been using candles and an ashtray, but that, ultimately, code violations were still at issue, including bars welded to windows and blocked fire exits.
Though in the past, fixing student housing in the area suffered due to fear that costs for both landlord and tenant would rise, in the months after the fire, residents and neighborhood organizations finally complained about the neglected housing in the area. In early 2005, inspectors evicted nearly fifty students in the course of the Georgetown area investigations. One would think the neighborhood landlords had learned their lesson, but seven citations have been issued so far in the current sweep, primarily for blocked fire exits and lack of a business license, which require regular inspections.
|
Even in the last months of the Williams administration people remain divided on the twin questions of 1) whether Canavan will be able to turn DCRA around and 2) How long it might take to do so given the institutional push-back he and Crews are receiving.
What's clear to all, though, is that DCRA hasn't worked well in living memory and that there is a long way to go before it does. An unfortunate byproduct of the dysfunctional tenure of this agency is that it has spawned a lawless culture that wants and expects nothing else. That culture clearly includes the absentee-landlords of G'town.
I remove the hot frog from the pot, and drink the broth. Thus fortified, it pleases me to walk the brick sidewalks, admiring the young people on birth control.
So it's against code to have metal bars welded to windows? A lot of basement apartments have bars permanently affixed to windows.
Eng bsmts need two methods of egress, including one in the bedroom. Probably a lot of the apts in g'twn don't have proper C of Os
In addition to the required two means of egress, there are rules governing the maximum distance from the floor for the one in the bedroom, which most (virtually all?) basement apartments in many parts of town are in clear violation of (since the windows are often a) small, and b) high).
Almost every residence window in every neighborhood of this city, be it basement or otherwise, (apartment buildings don't seem to) has metal prison-esque bars over it. I don't know how they are affixed, welded, or whatever, but since they are at least perceived as a necessity, there should be some sort of standardized requirements for how they might be removed in the event of a fire, etc. Maybe some sort of deadbolt requiring a key would at least give the person inside a chance to get out as long as he could find the key.
A nice conjunctive approach would be to reduce/stiffen penalties for property crime, possibly reducing the perceived need for the prison bars/door gates altogether.
Maybe?
They look pretty bleak.
"some sort of standardized requirements for how they might be removed in the event of a fire, etc."
It's remarkably standard:
http://www.fire-end.com/k12saw.htm
Seriously, though, people don't break into apartments because the penalties are too low, they break in because they never get caught or prosecuted...and window bars are available with a sort of crash bar on the inside that you can hit to get out, but people don't seem to buy that kind much...code or not.
Joclyn
The bedroom windows in each of my 80's vintage apts have locks. They can be removed but, as you point out, the key's got to be accessable nearby, and not hidden away and forgotten. I'll point out that I've got a CofO, which means at one point I passed inspection. What passed code in the 80's often doesn't today. For example, I wasn't required to and don't have sprinklers. I provide extra fire extinguishers.
I know for a fact that a lot of rental housing (advertised as group housing, in-law suite, or, most outrageously, "No CofO", has not passed any inspection at any time. This goes to the lawless culture I mentioned. It's in the interest of both the tenant and the landlord to wink and nod, at least 'till there's a landlord-tenant feud or someone gets hurt. DCRA can't possibly catch up with the backlog. How would they even know where to inspect? At least one doesn't hear about DCRA inspectors getting paid off as much anymore, and at least DCRA seems to be trying to reform.
I'm in an "English basement" found on Craig's List. I got the hint that it was an illegal apartment from the get-go, since I don't have my own meter. But there are only two ways out, the door to the backyard (my main entrance) and the door up to the rest of the house. I guess the (barred) windows might as well be brick walls.
How much do these illegal basement units run?
I don't want someone to do a Google search of my name one day and find out how much rent I pay, but I'll say that I pay $150 less than I did for a sunny studio in Brooklyn, and THAT place was a good deal.
And, a-hem, it's NOT a basement. It's 2 steps below ground level. And I have windows. In more than one room.
Joclyn:
Your "Eng Bsmt" is actually an "In-Law" suite. I don't think it's a legal rental.