Comments on: 3145 Mt. Pleasant Street

By: DCDireWolf

DCDireWolf — Thu, 29 May 2008 15:37:29 +0000

Nate, pointing out a present reality does not make that reality right, or unable to be changed.

By: Chris Loos

Chris Loos — Wed, 28 May 2008 13:57:58 +0000

As far as the city insuring that the displaced can move back in, perhaps they’ll do 30% affordable MAX, with the rest being market rate. It’s just not worth it for the developer otherwise.

By: Chris Loos

Chris Loos — Wed, 28 May 2008 13:56:11 +0000

I agree with Nate. I’d be SHOCKED it this building wasn’t rebuilt as luxury apartments or condos. Seems like a golden opportunity for a developer.

By: nate

nate — Wed, 28 May 2008 12:44:09 +0000

Adams Morgan,
How do you know the owner was not hurting for money. And what does it matter if he wasn’t? No owner in his right mind is going to take care of a building when there are tenants paying undermarket rents. That’s just reality. Not even the Catholic Church would be so benevolent. You want cheap rent, move to SE. You want to stay in a nice covenient, safe neighborhood, either pony up or demand DC make your hood safer.

There are people in Petworth, a less than desirable neighborhood than Mt. Pleasant, that are renting rooms in their homes for less than some of the people in that building were paying for an entire apartment. All the sypmpathy and ill suited laws are not going to make a business owner overlook the laws of supply, demand, and pricing. It just ain’t gonna happen.

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. ”

–Adam Smith

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 27 May 2008 21:27:05 +0000

Haha, I knew the stupid conspiracy theories would raise their heads again! So funny and predictable.

SircoopEsq, so you have access to their insurance policy? Cool.

By: Adams Morgan

Adams Morgan — Tue, 27 May 2008 20:45:33 +0000

The tenants in this building were pretty close to finalizing a deal with NWJ right before the fire.

By: Ummm...

Ummm... — Tue, 27 May 2008 20:23:25 +0000

One would think the first right of purchase for residents, love those DC housing laws, would still apply. Otherwise, something tells me there would be a startaling amount of accidental catastrophic fires to old apartment buildings in gentrifying neighborhoods.

By: SirCoopEsq

SirCoopEsq — Tue, 27 May 2008 20:01:43 +0000

The owners of the building had it insured for 30 million…I think they are doing just fine for money. Clearly the building wasn’t worth that much, makes you think twice about insurance fraud.

By: Adams Morgan

Adams Morgan — Tue, 27 May 2008 19:24:29 +0000

Not only was the owner of 3145 Mt. Pleasant responsible for 7000 code violations in that building alone, the company also owns several other buildings in the city that are all in violation of many codes…NWJ Company of Philadelphia owns this building and others and believe me, they are not hurting for money. The company and its buildings were one of the features players in the Post’s “Forced Out” series….One of the principles for the company used to be the controller of Montgomery County, Pa. but lost his bid for re-election…he was accused of voter fraud at one point but I don’t remember whether that was for his losing bid or his winning bid…they are a bunch of fine, upstanding people.

By: JessinMtP

JessinMtP — Tue, 27 May 2008 18:47:52 +0000

I refuse to have any sympathy for the owner of a building who was responsible for more than 7,000 code violations in a couple of years. While the cause of the fire is still unknown, the condition of the building certainly did not help.