Clarification of Rules Applying to Human Occupancy of Penthouses in District of Columbia Buildingsby Representative Louie Gohmert
Posted on 2014-04-28
GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I thank both of my colleagues. I am
extremely pleased with the sensitivity that is expressed for the people
of Washington, D.C., because that is what we should have here.
This is an amendment to the bill regarding the height of Washington, D.C., buildings that passed in 1910, as changing the height restrictions that were put in place in 1899; and as my colleague from the District of Columbia had pointed out, this really hasn't been discussed in detail in over 100 years.
I recently had someone here in Washington tell me that: Gee, as property gets so valuable here in Washington, you are going to see, at first, exceptions made to the height restrictions, then soon followed by a lifting of those restrictions because the money will be just too much for either party to turn down.
I am so grateful that the height is not being changed, as the chairman said, by one inch; but I am very concerned about beginning to make these exceptions for residence levels, even though ``residence'' is the change, basically, in essence, and I have looked at the change. I have reviewed the prior law.
But, Madam Speaker, I am concerned that this is the camel's nose going under the tent. You are beginning to put residences above the height that was previously allowed. It may dress some up, it may change some in ways that we are not crazy about, but I am just concerned about changing the height restrictions, even with these exceptions, after 114 years of being in existence.
So as a result, I thank the chairman and my friend from the District of Columbia, like I say, for their sensitivity, but I like the height restriction because of the emphasis that continues to be pushed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.