I know this won't be a popular comment, but really, I read the article last week and thought, "wow -- class privilege much?" So let me get this straight: people bought for cheap when the neighborhood was run-down in general, and now that the city is gentrifying all over the place, they're pissed that their "investments" aren't accruing value fast enough, and they want more people (presumably with money) to move in so they don't have to go more than two blocks to Trader Joe's once it moves in? I can't see that as anything other than outrageous. You should thank Shiloh for providing the opportunity to buy at lower-than-market rates.

It's easy to act like you're color blind to potential neighbors when the likeliehood of new buyers is white...

Everett - I think you're mis-characterizing the situation and the people involved. This is about accountability: these properties directly contribute to crime and blight in the Shaw neighborhood. I myself have painted over graffiti on these properties, picked up human feces under the stoops of these properties, and wonder constantly when some cracked out homeless person will accidentally set one of these properties on fire, exposing my own home (for which I worked hard to buy--whether or not I was able to afford it because of its proximity to Shiloh seems irrelevant) to risks as well. Other neighbors also deal with rats, termites and all kinds of unpleasantness as a result of these properties.

YET instead of being a good neighbor and picking up trash/painting over graffiti themselves, instead of putting these properties to any use, instead of selling these properties to a group like Mi Casa, or whatever, Shiloh has sat on them and let them rot for decades.

And as I understand it, Shiloh has continually refused to put these properties up for sale, despite people basically begging them to.

Clearly, Everett hasn't had to deal with Shiloh as a neighbor. Shiloh is the big privileged elephant in the room when it comes to real estate and having government conveniently look the other way with legal infractions.

I'll be amazed if the city actually enforces the law with them this time.

This is another reason why churches who own property should pay taxes.

I'd like to see the city combine this crisis with another one currently winding through the Council -- the displacement of the strip clubs from the stadium area.

If Shiloh can't or won't fix up these places, why doesn't the city use its emminent domain to take the properties and give them to owners who will maintain them properly? The strip clubs in SE were the only well-maintained structures in that area, and actually countered the relative blight by at least drawing in folks at night.

While I understand this idea would never work since the Shiloh properties are in a residential neighborhood, it does beg the question as to why the City will take properties and valuable business licenses away from those who follow the law and maintain their assets while turning a blind eye to these holier-than-thou slumlords.

Church or not, Shiloh's stewardship of these properties is disgusting.

I'd like to see the city combine this crisis with another one currently winding through the Council -- the displacement of the strip clubs from the stadium area.

If Shiloh can't or won't fix up these places, why doesn't the city use its emminent domain to take the properties and give them to owners who will maintain them properly? The strip clubs in SE were the only well-maintained structures in that area, and actually countered the relative blight by at least drawing in folks at night.

While I understand this idea would never work since the Shiloh properties are in a residential neighborhood, it does beg the question as to why the City will take properties and valuable business licenses away from those who follow the law and maintain their assets while turning a blind eye to these holier-than-thou slumlords.

Church or not, Shiloh's stewardship of these properties is disgusting.

Because, New Amusements, Shiloh is a church whose congregants are black, while the strip clubs' owners were white.

I'm sure the relatively unpalatable PR that would have ensued if the city tried to use eminent domain on a religious institution played a small role, too. But my take is that in DC the predominant calculus is, as always, race.

O.K. i get the anti-white, anti-development characterization...but are you surprised they are anti-gay...Religions in general are anti-gay, as it goes against their conceived notions of God's natural law... so i don't think it necessarily fair to throw that out as some sort of stark, unfounded, inflammatory position...i mean they are also anti-murder, anti-child molestation, anti-polygamist, anti-satan, anti-...etc,
if you don't want any "anti-gays" in the neighbourhood, let's get rid of all of the other denominations and people who subscribe to them.

i am not saying it is right, or wrong, but overall stupid to point out something that has nothing to do with this argument and teems with the notion that "you" are more anti-christian, than anti-shiloh.

*sorry if this posted twice, tech failure on my part*

Why so much hype about this particular property? And do I dare bother asking about the buildings that have sat unused in SE, such as down historic MLK in Anacostia?

As a black male Christian who has attended events at Shiloh, I've also wanted to ask Reverend Smith, Reverend Thomas Bowen and the Shiloh Board of Trustees "how are the least of those" in the Shaw community served by Shiloh properties vacant for decades? (Matthew 25:40). And by "the least of these" I mean the elderly and low-income in need of affordable housing.

Regardless, vacant property is most likely to encourage illegal squatters, vandalism, broken windows, litter, graffiti and other activity that leads to greater crime and blight that no one wants in their community. Shiloh has owned vacant property for nearly 50 years that the city has finally classified as unfit for living without requisite repairs.

The properties in question serve no function and consistently result in negative effects (in terms of crime and trash). The only selfish function they serve are for Shiloh parishoners. Shiloh benefits from vacant properties because it means more available street parking spaces and rear parking spaces at the back of the vacant buildings.

Race, religion, sexual orientation, tenure in the neighborhood having nothing to do with the basic fact that Shiloh must maintain their properties and hopefully develop them.

If you read enough of these comment threads, you could easily start believing in what right-wing Christians call "the gay agenda." Some people seem to compulsively define everything in terms of gayness or anti-gayness, regardless of how irrelevant that is.

DCB:
Thanks for tying the O Street Market to this. It seems pretty clear there's been some synergy between these various disused spaces.

But, wow, with all the stuff you say is being added (...a 180-room hotel, 300 condos, 300 apts, including senior affordable housing, 7,500 SF of locally owned retail, a reopened 8th St. and 700 parking spots), will anyone even be able to find the old market? (I guess the 7500 sf local retail will be in the footprint of the old market itself) This is huge. 600 apartments at, say, an average sf of 700 each makes for 420,000 sf of new building. And that's not including the hotel...

You should thank Shiloh for providing the opportunity to buy at lower-than-market rates.
-----------
what about thanking the DC Sniper? Or a local murderer that kept prices down. Are you insane Man?!

Post 29 is exactly why I can't wait for gentrification to come fast enough to DC.

I am not saying these posts have anything to do with the "gay agenda". I am just doing some self-promo on my own glib thoughts on contemporary society. It's all good.

Chris: My post was directed to Christ, not Chris. I probably should have spelled out his entire name (Christ on a Crutch) for clarity.

Hey Sommer, Hillman, so much for open debate it's funny some of you want everyone to hear you and your media campagin aginst the church fact 1 the picture in the Rear photo/with grass is owned by
Park Service check your facts and stop cutting and passing comments you don't agree with!

Another Fact a resident was caught dumping trash on Shihlo property when question she swore in
affadavit The ANC TOLD HER TO DO IT
Let's see if this gets posted

I am informed that Shiloh member Curtie Mae Turner bought the houses on 9th St and left them in her will to Shiloh with the stipulation that they be converted into housing for the elderly. Since wills are public records, anyone (especially a reporter who gets paid to inform the rest of us) could look up the will and find out exactly what constraints Shiloh is operating under.

Specifically, what does the will say should happen if Shiloh DOESN'T turn the properties into elderly housing? If we knew that, we might be a lot further in understanding why they have failed to sell or develop the properties.

Maeella and Everett, you clearly know nothing about the situation in Shaw. Shiloh is a bastion of privilege--check out the cars outside services. Many of its members had enough money to ditch Shaw for PG after the riots, and many of them are well-connected politically, both in DC and in Maryland.

Not everyone homeless is an addict, but many addicts are homeless. Homeless addicts don't give a shit about anything except their next fix. They drop trash and drug paraphanalia everywhere. If they or their johns use condoms, they drop those everywhere. They piss and shit everywhere. They have no regard for fire safety. Homeless people in Shaw have access to many agencies that provide excellent services. One of them is on the 1500 block of 7th St. However addicts will not bother to walk 3 feet to a trash can, let alone a couple of blocks to an agency where they could use the bathroom.

And lets not forget the drug dealers, pimps, hookers, and johns who travel to Shaw from the suburbs to do their dirty business here rather than "shit where they eat" in Maryland or Virginia.

This is why vacant properties must be secured and constantly inspected to make sure no one has broken in.

Rich or poor, black American or Ethiopian, white, Chinese or Salvadoran, nobody likes trash, graffiti, human feces in public spaces, or unsecured vacant buildings and lots where people set fires, deal/use drugs and prostitute themselves (BTW, we had a fire last week on my block at an unsecured property).

Most people are annoyed by property owners who refuse to sell at market value when the neighborhood clearly needs more housing and businesses and there are now (finally!) plenty of investors interested in Shaw. When these property owners (e.g. Shiloh, Mike Sendar) allow their properties to become eyesores and hazards, that annoyance turns to rage.

People with more time and money are able to make a bigger fuss about public safety and economic development, and to get more attention from the media and government, but that doesn't mean that poorer people aren't also concerned about these issues. Race-baiting, gay-baiting and class-baiting are done by people who care more about bigotry and their own status than improving the neighborhood for everyone. In any case, Shaw has never been all-black, all-poor or all-straight, so the codeword "newcomer" is a ridiculous red herring, designed to mislead those who don't know the actual individuals who are active in local affairs.