White's Tabernacle No. 39
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Dc Homeowners' Property Taxes Remain Lowest in The
An Affiliate of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 820 First Street NE, Suite 460 Washington, DC 20002 (202) 408-1080 Fax (202) 408-8173 www.dcfpi.org February 27, 2009 DC HOMEOWNERS’ PROPERTY TAXES REMAIN LOWEST IN THE REGION By Katie Kerstetter This week, District homeowners will receive their assessments for 2010 and their property tax bills for 2009. The new assessments are expected to decline modestly, after increasing significantly over the past several years. The new assessments won’t impact homeowners’ tax bills until next year, because this year’s bills are based on last year’s assessments. Yet even though 2009’s tax bills are based on a period when average assessments were rising, this analysis shows that property tax bills have decreased or risen only moderately for many homeowners in recent years. DC homeowners continue to enjoy the lowest average property tax bills in the region, largely due to property tax relief policies implemented in recent years. These policies include a Homestead Deduction1 increase from $30,000 to $67,500; a 10 percent cap on annual increases in taxable assessments; and an 11-cent property tax rate cut. The District also adopted a “calculated rate” provision that decreases the tax rate if property tax collections reach a certain target. As a result of these measures, most DC homeowners have seen their tax bills fall — or increase only modestly — over the past four years. In 2008, DC homeowners paid lower property taxes on average than homeowners in surrounding counties. Among homes with an average sales price of $500,000, DC homeowners paid an average tax of $2,725, compared to $3,504 in Montgomery County, $4,752 in PG County, and over $4,400 in Arlington and Fairfax counties. -
Transportation Impact Study American University – Tenley Campus Washington, DC
Preliminary Transportation Impact Study American University – Tenley Campus Washington, DC August 29, 2011 Prepared by: 1140 Connecticut Avenue 3914 Centreville Road 7001 Heritage Village Plaza Suite 600 Suite 330 Suite 220 Washington, DC20036 Chantilly, VA20151 Gainesville, VA20155 Tel: 202.296.8625 Tel: 703.787.9595 Tel: 703.787.9595 Fax: 202.785.1276 Fax: 703.787.9905 Fax: 703.787.9905 www.goroveslade.com This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of services, is intended for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization by Gorove/Slade Associates, Inc., shall be without liability to Gorove/Slade Associates, Inc. Preliminary Transportation Impact Study – Tenley Campus Gorove/Slade Associates TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................................................... ii List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................................................... iv Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................................................... v 1: Introduction & Site Review ..................................................................................................................................................... -
Replace Or Modernize?
Payne ES 1896 Draper ES 1953 Miner ES 1900 Shadd ES 1955 Ketcham ES Replace1909 Moten or ES Modernize1955 ? Bell SHS 1910 Hart MS 1956 Garfield ETheS Future191 0of theSharpe District Health of SE Columbia' 1958 s Thomson ES 191Endangered0 Drew ES Old and 195Historic9 Smothers ES 1923 Plummer ES 1959 Hardy MS (Rosario)1928 Hendley ESPublic 195School9 s Bowen ES 1931 Aiton ES 1960 Kenilworth ES 1933 J.0. Wilson ES May196 12001 Anacostia SHS 1935 Watkins ES 1962 Bunker Hill ES 1940 Houston ES 1962 Beers ES 1942 Backus MS 1963 Kimball ES 1942 C.W. Harris ES 1964 Kramer MS 1943 Green ES 1965 Davis ES 1943 Gibbs ES 1966 Stanton ES 1944 McGogney ES 1966 Patterson ES 1945 Lincoln MS 1967 Thomas ES 1946 Brown MS 1967 Turner ES 1946 Savoy ES 1968 Tyler ES 1949 Leckie ES 1970 Kelly Miller MS 1949 Shaed ES 1971 Birney ES 1950 H.D. Woodson SHS 1973 Walker-Jones ES 1950 Brookland ES 1974 Nalle ES 1950 Ferebee-Hope ES 1974 Sousa MS 1950 Wilkinson ES 1976 Simon ES 1950 Shaw JHS 1977 R. H. Terrell JHS 1952 Mamie D. Lee SE 1977 River Terrace ES 1952 Fletche-Johnson EC 1977 This report is dedicated to the memory of Richard L. Hurlbut, 1931 - 2001. Richard Hurlbut was a native Washingtonian who worked to preserve Washington, DC's historic public schools for over twenty-five years. He was the driving force behind the restoration of the Charles Sumner School, which was built after the Civil War in 1872 as the first school in Washington, DC for African- American children. -
A Moral Call for a National Moratorium on Water, Power and Broadband Shutoffs
To: The Honorable Nancy Pelosi The Honorable Mitch McConnell Speaker Majority Leader U.S. House of Representatives U.S. Senate Washington, D.C. 20515 Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Kevin McCarthy The Honorable Chuck Schumer Minority Leader Democratic Leader U.S. House of Representatives U.S. Senate Washington, D.C. 20515 Washington, D.C. 20510 cc: U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Date: July 30, 2020 A Moral Call for a National Moratorium on Water, Power and Broadband Shutoffs Dear Senate Majority Leader McConnell, Minority Leader Schumer, Speaker Pelosi, Minority Leader McCarthy, Chairman Barrasso, and Ranking Member Carper, Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking Member Manchin, Chairman Wicker, and Ranking Member Cantwell: On behalf of our congregants, members and supporters nationwide, we, the undersigned 537 faith leaders and organizations urge Congress to take decisive, moral action and implement a nationwide moratorium on the shut-offs of electricity, water, broadband, and all other essential utility services for all households, places of worship, and other non-profit community centers as part of the next COVID-19 rescue package. As faith leaders in the Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Baha’i, and other religious traditions, we call on you to come to the aid of struggling families and houses of worship across the country--and ensure that we all have access to water, power, and broadband during the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. Nearly 80% of the American population self identifies as being grounded in a faith ideology. -
Pounding the Pavement the Park 16TH ST
MD. B EA C H 29 D.C. Chevy D MD. R. Chase D.C. N.H. AVE. CONNECTICUT AVE. MILITARY RD. MILITARY RD. 13TH ST. Pounding the Pavement The Park 16TH ST. 1.7 miles ROCK (With Your Boots On) NEBRASKA AVE. CREEK . D R S.D. AVE. FINISH: Fort Reno T Rock Creek N P ARK A Park G R Suburbs Park Tennis E G 400 O RIGGS RD. 409 feet Center R feet in the City G I Iowa and 1 3 miles A A B N V Arkansas r O E o R . avenues a T START: d H Rock Broad Fort Carter The area around Third and Webster 13th and 171 feet Creek Branch C DAVENPORT ST. Br Barron A Washington’s Reno streets shows a diversity of homes. P FORT U streets I T Park Amphi- O L TOTTEN 95 feet 300 highest point is in theatre S . T Fort Reno Park. E . Finish V Fort Otis and A S Endless Totten A Park Place S N N.H. AVE. Park A Northwest 200 feet K FORT RENO PHOTO BY JAMES M. THRESHER — THE WASHINGTON POST; OTHER PHOTOS BY STEVEN GINSBERG — THE WASHINGTON POST R 2 miles IOWA AVE. A Rock . Sherman This old clunker probably hadn’t been on the open road in decades. 200 TENLEYTOWN- DR Creek H Circle AU C Cemetery A E B 5TH ST. Suburbs BUCHANAN ST. Endless Northwest | 2 miles Heart of Rock Creek Endless The in the 29 Petwort h WEBSTER ST the City Cemetery Northwest Park City 13TH ST. -
Chapter 4 District-Wide Planning
Chapter 4 District-wide Planning District-wide Planning . 78 Distinctive Neighborhoods . 87 Planning for the Future - Office of Planning . 78 Center City . 87 Comprehensive Plan . 78 Revitalization Plans . 88 Family of Plans . 78 Neighborhood Planning . 88 2013 Progress Report . 78 Ward 1 . 88 Capital Planning . 79 Ward 2 . 91 Height Master Plan . 79 Ward 3 . 93 Sustainable DC . 80 Ward 4 . 96 Transportation Assistance . 81 Ward 5 . 99 Climate Action Plan . .. 81 Ward 6 . 102 Sustainability Through Zoning . 82 Ward 7 . 105 Stormwater Management . .. 82 Ward 8 . 108 Transportation Choices/Connections . 82 Historic Preservation . 113 Streetcar Planning . 82 Supporting Communities . 113 Mt Vernon Sq District Transportation Analysis . 82 Recognizing Our Heritage . 114 Housing/Transportation Index Study . 82 Encouraging Good Stewardship . 116 DC Metro Commuting & Housing Access Survey . .. 83 Promoting High Quality Reinvestment . 116 Live Near Your Work . 83 Protecting Historic Assets . 119 Retail Development & Vibrant Places . 83 Recognizing Excellence . 120 Vibrant Retail Streets Toolkit . 83 Planning Tools . 121 Temporary Urbanism . 84 Zoning . 121 ArtPlace . 84 Early History . 121 DC Third Place Initiative . .. 85 The Zoning Commission Actions . 124 Public Space & Parks Planning . 85 Zoning Regulations Review . 125 A City of Public Places . 85 Geographic Information Systems (GIS) & IT . 126 Mount Vernon Square Temporary Playground . 86 Toolmaking . 126 Creative PlaySpaces . 86 Integrating and Analyzing Data . .. 126 11th Street Recreation Bridge Concept . 86 Visualizing the City in 3D . 126 Franklin Park . 87 Mapping for OP and Others . 126 Information Technology . 126 • Indices 2013 • District of Columbia • 77 DISTRICT-WIDE PLANNING This is a unique time for our city—an exciting time. The city has made a remarkable comeback since the first decade of the new millennium. -
Housing in the Nation's Capital
Housing in the Nation’s2005 Capital Foreword . 2 About the Authors. 4 Acknowledgments. 4 Executive Summary . 5 Introduction. 12 Chapter 1 City Revitalization and Regional Context . 15 Chapter 2 Contrasts Across the District’s Neighborhoods . 20 Chapter 3 Homeownership Out of Reach. 29 Chapter 4 Narrowing Rental Options. 35 Chapter 5 Closing the Gap . 43 Endnotes . 53 References . 56 Appendices . 57 Prepared for the Fannie Mae Foundation by the Urban Institute Margery Austin Turner G. Thomas Kingsley Kathryn L. S. Pettit Jessica Cigna Michael Eiseman HOUSING IN THE NATION’S CAPITAL 2005 Foreword Last year’s Housing in the Nation’s Capital These trends provide cause for celebration. adopted a regional perspective to illuminate the The District stands at the center of what is housing affordability challenges confronting arguably the nation’s strongest regional econ- Washington, D.C. The report showed that the omy, and the city’s housing market is sizzling. region’s strong but geographically unbalanced But these facts mask a much more somber growth is fueling sprawl, degrading the envi- reality, one of mounting hardship and declining ronment, and — most ominously — straining opportunity for many District families. Home the capacity of working families to find homes price escalation is squeezing families — espe- they can afford. The report provided a portrait cially minority and working families — out of of a region under stress, struggling against the city’s housing market. Between 2000 and forces with the potential to do real harm to 2003, the share of minority home buyers in the the quality of life throughout the Washington District fell from 43 percent to 37 percent. -
American University Park GEORGETOWN—VACANT* THE
PACKING and STORAGE HOUSES WANTED TO RENT. HOUSES FOR SALE—N,W. (Caul.) HOUSES FOR SALE—Northwi»t. APARTMENTS FURNISHED. 1 APARTMENTS OUT-OF-TOWN. MOVING, TWO OR THREE BEDROOM HOUSE—Pre- GEORGETOWN — the Potomac; BEDOMS.. sitting rm., kltch- (Can't) Facing BURLEITH APT.. In Va.—For empl. rple 'two SMALL fer American U. Park. Cleveland Pk., Ch semidetached room, room, E-ROOM l hot and cold water, elec- living dining cnly; new refer., aemipvt. bath; gentile enette. lull bath, EX-GI—Moving, picking, ttorite. crating: Ch area: lease; to $135. EM. 0406. —4 fireplace, powder room and kitchen. 2 3 bcdrmi.; redecorated and read? for pos- HOUSES FOR : use of apt. includes use SALE—Northwit. HOUSES FOR SALE—Nsrthwgtt family; $65 incl. utilities; car necessary. tricity, telephone: reasonable rates, efficient service; no job NAVAL AVIATOR needs 3-bedrm. unfurn. bedrooms, large dressing room and bath, session; conv. tq schools and transp, and outdoor swimming pool, 8S28. FA 1920 -—*> of indoor too large or too small. GLOVER, MB. house. Chevy Ch or N. Arl.; around *125; small garden, roof deck with magnificent $19,500. OWNER, CO. 3314. No agents. NEAR 16th AND UNDERWOOD tennis court, riding horse, etc.; good S’ —5 5012 N. CAPITOL ST. TWO-ROOM APARTMENT with private j care guar. EM. 746.3 before 10 or after 3. view of the river, gas furnace in basement. Modem Co- must have car; about 4<> detached center-entrance-plan Three-family brick apt. haute: a bath, private ertfrance. hot plate and hunting, fishing: 5* Price. $20,500. ROVANA B. -
Rock Creek Park Visitor Study Summer 1999
Rock Creek Park Visitor Study Summer 1999 Report 112 Visitor Services Project Cooperative Park Studies Unit Rock Creek Park Visitor Study Summer 1999 Margaret Littlejohn Visitor Services Project Report 112 April 2000 Margaret Littlejohn is VSP Coordinator, National Park Service, based at the Cooperative Park Studies Unit, University of Idaho. I thank Mike Meehan, Alyson Vander Stoep, Leigh Blackburn, Sara Kohan and the staff of Rock Creek Park for their assistance with this study. The VSP acknowledges the Public Opinion Lab of the Social and Economic Sciences Research Center, Washington State University, for its technical assistance. Visitor Services Project Rock Creek Park Report Summary • This report describes the results of a visitor study at Rock Creek Park during July 8-14, 1999. A total of 888 questionnaires were distributed to visitors. Visitors returned 564 questionnaires for a 63.5% response rate. • This report profiles Rock Creek Park visitors. A separate appendix contains visitors' comments about their visit. This report and the appendix include summaries of those comments. • Forty percent of the visitors were alone; 25% were with friends and 25% were with family. Forty- three percent of visitor groups were groups of one; 33% were in groups of two. Over one-half of visitors (56%) were aged 26-50; 13% were aged 15 years or younger. • Most visitors (93%) said English is their primary language. Most visitors (94%) said their ethnicity was "not Hispanic or Latino." When asked about their race, visitors responded as follows: White (74%), Black or African American (24%), Asian (3%), Hispanic or Latino (2%), American Indian/Alaska Native (1%) and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (<1%). -
Draft Resolution Not Opposing Overheight Fence
ADVISORY NEIGHBORHOOD COMMISSION 3E TENLEYTOWN AMERICAN UNIVERSITY PARK FRIENDSHIP HEIGHTS CHEVY CHASE WAKEFIELD FORT GAINES c/o Lisner Home 5425 Western Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20015 www.anc3e.com RESOLUTION NOT OPPOSING PUBLIC SPACE APPLICATION #339585 WHEREAS: 1. In 1870, Congress designated certain right-of-way owned by the federal government but next to private property in DC as park areas to be maintained by the adjacent property owner, designating the space as “public parking”1 (thus, the term “parking” refers to parks rather than a place to park automobiles). Public parking, although under the care and keeping of the adjacent landowner, is supposed to benefit the public at large. 2. Accordingly, much of what residents think of as “their” front yards, and side yards for those with corner lots, is in fact public space. 3. Because DC law places public parking under the care and keeping of adjacent landowners, the law permits landowners to install fences up to 42 inches of height that are also of “open design of at least 50%”2 around the parking. This permits owners to exclude third persons physically from their land, but makes the green space in the parking visually available to all passers-by while creating an open feel. 4. The extensive greenspace visible around private properties in DC is a defining characteristic of our city. 5. Where some compelling rationale exists, however, landowners may apply for permission to build fences higher than 42 inches 6. The residents of 3848 Harrison Street NW (“Applicants”) have applied for permission to build a 6-foot wooden fence utilizing overlapping boards in public space in their side yard parallel to the sidewalk but recessed in 12 feet along 39th Street to enhance their privacy. -
Campus Plan Transportation Report
Transportation Report American University 2011 Campus Plan Washington, DC March 11, 2011 Prepared for: American University 4400 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC20016 Prepared by: 1140 Connecticut Avenue 3914 Centreville Road 7001 Heritage Village Plaza Suite 600 Suite 330 Suite 220 Washington, DC20036 Chantilly, VA20151 Gainesville, VA20155 Tel: 202.296.8625 Tel: 703.787.9595 Tel: 703.787.9595 Fax: 202.785.1276 Fax: 703.787.9905 Fax: 703.787.9905 www.goroveslade.com This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of services, is intended for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization by Gorove/Slade Associates, Inc., shall be without liability to Gorove/Slade Associates, Inc. Transportation Report – American University Campus Plan Gorove/Slade Associates TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures .............................................................................................................................................................................. iii List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................................................... iv List of Photos .............................................................................................................................................................................. iv Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................ -
State of Washington, D.C.'S Neighborhoods A-3
State of Washington, D.C.’s Neighborhoods Prepared by Peter A. Tatian G. Thomas Kingsley Margery Austin Turner Jennifer Comey Randy Rosso Prepared for The Office of Planning The Government of the District of Columbia September 30, 2008 The Urban Institute 2100 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 UI project no. 08040-000-01 State of Washington, D.C.’s Neighborhoods ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ............................................................................................... ii Acknowledgments............................................................................................. vi About this Report ............................................................................................... 1 I. Introduction...................................................................................................... 3 II. Demographics................................................................................................. 9 Population......................................................................................................................9 Households..................................................................................................................13 III. Economy – Jobs and Income ..................................................................... 15 Employed Residents and Unemployment Rate...........................................................15 Poverty and Household Income ..................................................................................18 Public Assistance