2011: A Look Ahead

By now, hopefully you have shaken off your post-New Year's hangover, you've cleaned out the remnants of the holiday feast from your fridge (and no, I don't mean Thanksgiving) and you haven't yet broken any of you new year's resolutions.



As we move into the new year, I thought we'd take a brief look at what's to come in our neighborhood during 2011. Call them predictions, prognostications or wishful thinking, here's what's on my list for 2011:

• District Condos will finally break ground.  I know, it seems like JBG is simply teasing us recently with talks of an "imminent" groundbreaking for their new mixed-use development at 14th and S streets.  But, sooner or later, the demolition of the site's current buildings will commence, and earth really will start getting pushed around, and we'll finally start to see real progress after years of discussions.  And once that happens, the real fun can commence; by which I mean, the hemming and hawing over who the project retailers will be.  Who wants an IHOP?



• 14th Street north of U Street will go gangbusters.  With both Perseus Realty's 14W development and the long-awaited Nehemiah Shopping Center development breaking ground, and Jemal's project across the street, it's shaping up to be a busy couple of years north of U Street for new development.



• O Street Market will/will not break ground.  This long-anticipated project remains frustratingly in a state of suspended animation.  In spite of a pronouncement in September 2010 that the project was set to commence, there's been little activity at the site in the four months since.  We keep looking out for signs of earth-moving equipment and an official announcement from the Giant at 9th and P that it is closing, but nothing yet.  At least nearby Progression Place finally broke ground:  it, along with the O Street Market, Howard Theater restoration and Marriott Convention Center hotel threaten to dramatically remake the Shaw neighborhood in the coming years.



• The Hiltons will continue adding to their DC restaurant/nightlife empire.  Marvin, The Gibson, ESL, U Street Music Hall, Patty Boom Boom, American Ice Co....brothers Ian and Eric Hilton have, seemingly overnight, turned into the kings of the DC lounge and nightlife scene.  Expect that to continue into 2011 with the soon-to-open Blackbyrd Warehouse near 14th and U, along with a new restaurant/lounge on Georgia Avenue in Petworth at the former Billy Simpson's House of Seafood and Steaks.  The Hilton's aren't the only ones with expanding ambitions along 14th and U Street, however.  Expect to see a new steakhouse and lounge from the Local 16 crew at the currently vacant building at 14th and U streets, and--perhaps--the opening of Local 14 along 14th Street between T and U.
  
  A little farther south along 14th Street, look for the opening of burger-and-fries eatery Standard at the former Garden District location at 14th and S, a new taqueria from the Masa 14 team next to the Black Cat on 14th between S and T, and maybe the new location of hamburger purveyors Rogue States near 14th and U (assuming there are no lawyers in the building).



• Transit:  A temporary reprieve from the streetscapes.  Don't expect too many headaches transit-wise throughout the mid-city area.  Although DDOT is nearing completion of its design for the 14th Street Streetscape project, actual construction remains years away.  And with the recently completed 17th Street Streetscape project, and the soon-to-be-completed 18th Street project (the Dupont portion, at least), the jackhammers and paving machines should be relatively quiet throughout our neighborhood.
  
  However, beginning soon (January or February) look out for major headaches in Adams-Morgan, as a reconstruction project for 18th Street between Florida Avenue and Columbia Road commences.  In addition, look for an announcement at some point in the first quarter of 2011 regarding the completion of the U Street Streetscape design.



• Housing prices will continue to rise.  Oh yes they will.  And in other shocking news, Ward Three residents remain unconvinced of Vince Gray's mayoral capacities.



• Hank's Oyster Bar will finally expand into their adjacent space.  Prepare your fallout shelters now, because I have it on good authority that this development will most certainly lead to a cessation of all human life within a four block radius of Hank's.  Oh the humanity.



• The 14th Street arts corridor will look a little less artsy.  Never mind the recent branding campaign to raise awareness of the so-called "Arts District,"the single greatest issue facing arts organizations and related businesses--spiraling commercial lease rates--remains unresolved by the city.  And with the District facing a mounting budget deficit and a continuing soft economy, don't look for the road to get any smoother for neighborhood arts institutions.  Longtime jazz club HR-57 has already packed up its Steinway and headed east to H Street, where the commercial tax rate is lower.  Who's next?



• 14th Street will get a decent sandwich shop.  Actually, that already happened.

Happy 2011 everyone.

ANC2B Files, Then Withdraws, Protest of Hank's; Residents Threaten Legal Action

Tossing aside months of statements amounting to "we're not going to get involved," ANC2B voted at last week's meeting to protest the renewal of the liquor license for Jamie Leeds' popular Hank's Oyster Bar--then promptly rescinded the letter of protest after working out a deal with Leeds.

Meanwhile, a group of resident protesters led by Q Street resident David Mallof have threatened to file an appeal with the DC Court of Appeals should the alcohol board allow the termination of Hank's VA with the residents, along with a request from Leeds to add a rooftop garden and french doors leading to the street-level patio.

That's right: residents are threatening legal action over french doors.

If you're wondering what happened, well, so are we. it's rather long and winding road towards what has been a rather absurdly drawn-out protest of a popular neighborhood eatery. (Our post from a few months ago covers the protest in excruciating detail. Pour yourself a stiff drink before reading it.)

Basically, what it comes down to is this: a few area residents have decided that Leeds' plans to expand into the adjacent vacant space, and to vacate her existing VA with them, amounts to the end of life as we know it. Or something akin to that. Never mind that Leeds is perfectly within her rights to pursue expansion into the adjacent space--the recently re-ratified 17th Street Liquor License Moratorium specifically permits Leeds to do exactly that. And never mind that said protestants were unable to demonstrate any actual or potential harm by such a move--or even why a VA was necessary.

The ANC had voted to take no action on either the' "substantial change" to Hank's license (namely, the expansion into the neighboring building and outdoor space) or Leeds' request to terminate her VA with the Dupont Circle Citizen's Association and the aforementioned neighborhood residents.

The ANC's decision to reverse course came as a result of comments made by Leeds' attorney, Andrew Kline, at a November 3 alcohol board hearing, where he mentioned that Hank's would be legally permitted to maintain sidewalk cafe hours until 2 AM weekdays and 3 AM weekends--which they would. Except, they had no intention of doing so. Leeds had stated repeatedly that she had no intention of expanding Hank's patio hours.

Still, the ANC, as commissioner Victor Wexler put it, "does not want to risk having those hours allowed for anyone." So they filed a protest. Leeds immediately filed letter with ABRA which restricted her hours to 11 PM and midnight, which matched the statements she repeatedly made under oath at the alcohol board hearing. Subsequently, the ANC withdrew its protest, leaving Leeds' last remaining hurdle an upcoming ABRA Board hearing on the resident's protest of the expansion and substantial change.

Or perhaps not. In a ridiculously hyperbolic email recently sent by Mallof to a group of "interested" residents (subject line: "Grave ABC Board actions affecting all of DC"), he threatens to pursue further legal action should the alcohol board not side with his and his group's opposition to Leeds' plans:

"We await word on theses dramatically proposed instant license change requests," the email states. "If the Board approves these without placarding and public comment, we shall appeal to the DC Court of Appeals as well."

Is it any possible wonder why Leeds wanted to vacate her VA with these people?

In case you were wondering, Leeds' request to vacate her VA is entirely within the bounds of the law--any business that has been operating under one for at least four years has the right to make such a request. And although such requests were rare, in Leeds' case the alcohol board found that the key points of contention which would otherwise be addressed in the VA--namely, occupancy and operating hours--were addressed in the licensing agreement, thus making the VA redundant.

And so here we are, nearly a year after Leeds launched an effort to expand her restaurant: the ANC is not opposing the move, and the alcohol board seems poised to permit it. So where does that leave Mallof and the other resident protesters? They could certainly appeal the alcohol board's decision, but it's unlikely that such an appeal would meet with success. Most likely, they're going to be left on the outside looking in: having only themselves to blame for behaving so unreasonably and essentially forcing Leeds to pursue remedies to vacate the agreement she had signed with them. Ultimately, they'll likely be left with no recourse other than sending emails to each other complaining of the "hurricane of precedent setting, DC-wide rule of law and negative externality impact implications happening here in Dupont Circle."

Goodness, you'd think Jamie Leeds was trying to install french doors or something.

Hank's: Analysis of a Liquor License Protest

Frequently, on here and elsewhere, we delve into discussions about liquor licenses; specifically, the frequent protests that are brought by ANCs and other citizens groups in an attempt to regulate the licensee through the voluntary agreement process. In the majority of instances, both the licensee and the protesters are able to reach an agreement that is satisfactory to both.

There are instances, unfortunately, when an agreement cannot be reached amicably. Sometimes, this is the result of one party believing that it will prevail in a hearing before the ABRA Board. In other instances, it is simply a case of a group of protesters abusing the protest process. Such is the case with the current protest of expansion plans by Hank's Oyster Bar.

The timing here is interesting, as the status of Hank's liquor license will be addressed at an upcoming meeting, on October 13, at ABRA (scroll to the bottom of the page for information on Hank's).

First, a bit of background. Hank's opened in their location at 17th and Q streets in 2005, the recipient of a single license expansion of the liquor license moratorium in place along 17th Street. The license was protested furiously--not by the Dupont Circle ANC, but rather by a group of residents who live near the intersection of 17th and Q streets. Nevertheless, Hank's prevailed, and chef-owner Jamie Leeds' establishment was quickly cemented as one of the area's most popular eateries.

Fast forward to 2010, and Leeds announces plans to expand to the adjacent space and add 20 outdoor seats. Fans of Hank's applauded the long overdue move, which well help alleviate some of the long waits for those attempting to dine in the crowded space. However, some of the residents, many of whom were among the original protesters, were not amused. And, in spite of the fact that ANC2B voted not to protest the expansion plans, nor to protest Leeds' request to vacate her VA (on the grounds that her license includes all of the stipulations in the VA, making it redundant), they filed a protest anyway.

At this point in other posts, I might say a few words about the dangers of abusing the liquor license protest process, or about the reflexive opposition that seems to rear up from time to time around here. Instead, I'm going to let the protesters' words speak for themselves, so that readers can see--and judge for themselves--the merit of the arguments made by the protesters. As ANC2B commissioner Jack Jacobson noted recently, this seems to be a case of a group of protesters singling out a business without cause. Not only that, I might add, but the protest they have filed is completely baseless. Thus, below, I'm providing a point-by-point analysis of the specific issues raised by the protesters in their protest which was filed with ABRA on July 26.

First, a word about the protesters. The two lead protesters, David Mallof and Alexis Rieffel, do not live along the same block as Hank's. In fact, none of the protesters do. Most live along the 1700 block of Q, with some living as far south as 17th and Massachusetts. Why someone who lives at 17th and Massachusetts would be provoked to such a degree of outrage over an additional 20 outdoor seats at a restaurant 2 1/2 blocks away, I can only imagine. Anyway, onto the Re: line:

Re: Protest of Substantial Change Request to Dramatically Increase Seating and Use of Public Space within the Already Overconcentrated East Dupont Moratorium Zone at the Hyperconcentrated (sic) Street Corner of 17th and Q Streets, NW

Note the creative use of adjectives and adverbs: "dramatically increase," "overconcentrated" "hyperconcentrated". The intersection of 17th and Q features Trio, Hank's, the Java House coffee shop, and Floriana, along with a valet service and a residence. "Hyperconcentrated" doesn't mean what it used to, I guess. Moving on...

1. THE REQUEST IS PROHIBITED BY AN IN-FORCE, VALID AND CONTRACTUAL VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT

Actually, Hank's request is not "prohibited" by the Agreement, it simply isn't included in it. Hence Leeds' request to amend her license to include the adjacent building and outdoor seating area.

2. THE BOARD LACKS AUTHORITY TO FURTHER INCREASE MYRIAD CONCENTRATION AND ITS MYRIAD IMPACTS IN THE FACE OF RECENT FINDING OF OVERCONCENTRATION THAT RESULTED IN RENEWAL OF THE EAST DUPONT EMERGENCY MORATORIUM

There's a lot to parse through in this one, not the least of which is the use of a phrase--"myriad concentration"--for which I am unable to discern a definition. No matter. The gyst of what is being argued here is that because the 17th Street "emergency" moratorium is in place (now going on 19 years), by default ABRA should not approve Hank's expansion plans, because it would seem to be in contradiction to the purpose of the moratorium. There is one small problem with this position: it ignores the ruling by ABRA on the moratorium, published just this past May. Remember, Hank's is seeking to expand its operations, not obtain a new license. From ABRA's ruling:

"Public comment received by the Board reflects that there is a need for more than the two (2) lateral expansion applications requested by ANC 2B. Specifically, there are establishments with significant neighborhood support, who would not be able to file if lateral expansions were limited to only two (2) applications. As such, the Board now finds that it is appropriate to grant four (4) lateral expansions, rather than the two (2) that were originally requested."

In other words, what Leeds is requesting is entirely permissible under the adoption of the moratorium by ABRA earlier this year.

A. We appreciate the ambiance, diversity and positive externalities created by the ABC licensing, as well as the community benefits of allowing responsible licensees the use of scarce public space for ancillary sidewalk cafes.

The emphasis on the phrase "public space" was their's, ostensibly to remind us that Hank's is seeking a permit to place tables and chairs in a space that resides within the public domain. Which is true. But this isn't so much a legal argument against Hank's as it is a fantasy devoid of 17th Street reality--the space Leeds is seeking to expand into is vacant, and has been for years. The "public space" Hank's would be utilizing is not currently being used by anyone, nor are there any plans for it to be used by anyone. Basically, this is an argument that the neighborhood is better served with a vacant property than by allowing a popular--and well-run--neighborhood eatery to expand into it. How many people are honestly buying that argument?

B. It is because of the overcontration's negative impacts that moratoriums are critically important and specifically authorized under Title 25.

This is another appeal to the intention of the moratorium. But, as we've already demonstrated, the intention of the moratorium was to allow the expansion of up to four licensees--precisely what Leeds is seeking to do.

As to these perceived "negative impacts," the protesters go on to list things like "property values," "peace, order and quiet," and the ever-mysterious "and more." The mind reels at what "more" negative impacts Hank's could be imposing upon the Dupont citizenry. The issue of property values is a complete non-starter, as anyone who has watched property values climb over the last decade would attest. (In fact, I'm more inclined to believe the counter-argument: that property values are enhanced by the proximity to establishments such as Hank's.) And to the "peace, order and quiet" argument, as Commissioner Jacobson noted, he represents the residents who live directly across the street from Hank's, and has never once received a complaint about the restaurant.

C. The Board has never found that any of these impacts are in remission, which would be the only reason to allow any expansion of impacts, seats or licenses.

Yet again, it should be pointed out that the moratorium allows for the expansion of an establishment such as Hank's--there is no burden upon the licensee to show that "peace, order and quiet" has been somehow recaptured to a greater degree than it was five years ago.

D. Further, the Board had no data whatsoever in hand, rather pro or con, regarding property values.

To this, we are obliged to point out that whether the Board possessed any evidence of a decline or rise in property values is irrelevant to the question of whether Hank's expansion plans are appropriate and within the bounds of the law. There is no obligation for a licensee to provide an enhancement of property values, nor is there a requirement for the Board to consider such a thing when the moratorium stipulates that expansion is permitted. The protesters, for their part, are unable to present any data that their property values have declined, and they have certainly been unable to present data to show that their property values declined as a result of liquor licensees such as Hank's. (For what it is worth, median home sales prices in Hank's zip code have increased by 15% since 2005--peaking at a rise of 42.8% in 2007.)

Any further expansion of seats in the moratorium zone cannot be consistent with existing laws, or compatible with the broad interests of the District of Columbia, in the absence of factual, empirical, quantitative evidence that it will not result in greater overconcentration or yield some compensating benefits to nearby residents.

Notice the slippery-slope tactics employed here: Hank's request for an additional 20 outdoor seats is now a matter of sufficient concern for residents throughout the entire District! Mr. Mallof already presented a similar version of this argument when he, along with another Q Street resident, urged ABRA to reconsider its position on expansion--specifically, he requested that ABRA limit expansions to interior spaces only, which ABRA declined to do. And again, there is no burden that the licensee present "compensating benefits" to nearby residents, although it could be argued that providing additional seating at one of the brightest restaurant stars amongst an otherwise lackluster corridor constitutes a "compensating benefit".

In the face of repeated findings of overconcentration, we question whether the Board has the authority to grant an increase in net ABC seats in the face of the obvious negative externalities.

To begin, the Board does indeed have that authority--for if not them, then who? Secondly, the existing rule governing the moratorium permits just such an expansion. And it is certainly a matter of opinion as to whether the so-called negative externalities are indeed "obvious".

G. Title 25 makes it clear that the greatest weight must always be accorded to the most proximately affected and impacted residents, including abutting commercial property owners.

On this we agree, and it makes the absence of any of Hank's immediate neighbors--nay, any residents or businesses along Hank's entire block--from the protest all the more interesting.

If the tone here sounds harsh, it's only because I view this as a clear example of a flat-out abuse of the protest process. Leeds has implied in the past that, if things get too difficult for her in Dupont, she'll pack up and head elsewhere. I would not take that as an idle threat.

The thing to keep in mind here is that these protests, no matter how frivolous, have very real consequences for the business owners, who must employ legal counsel, use up vast amounts of time, and defer operating plans until the protest can be resolved. This case is particularly egregious, as it includes protesters who have protested Hank's before, largely regarding the same issues. If the issues were not valid before, what makes them valid now? And why must Leeds, and similar business owners, face down protests such as this time and again?

These are questions that should be asked, as not only can situations like this adversely impact good local business owners, but it also threatens the ability of residents to reasonably address legitimate issues with the business operating in their neighborhood. In this instance, Hank's immediate neighbors may in fact be well-served by the execution of a reasonable, balanced voluntary agreement--only the behavior of the protestants in this instance has been so abysmal, it's no wonder Leeds doesn't want any kind of agreement with them.

Ultimately, there are few who believe that Hank's expansion plans will not be approved, largely because they are reasonable and within the bounds of the law. But that simply makes us question the purpose of engaging in this protest. District law, rightly or wrongly, permits it--but to what end?

Catching Up on Restaurant News: Estadio Opens, no Protest for Hank's, Burgers for 14th Street

I hope everyone has been having a good summer. The 14thandyous just returned from a (much-needed) vacation, and ever-so-surely have been catching up on goings-on around the neighborhood. (I've also got to add: considering the ongoing drop in violent crime throughout the neighborhood and city, it's nice to be writing in July about new restaurant openings and not, for example, double homicides.) So, in case you missed it like we did, here's an abbreviated round-up of restaurant-related news and openings around the area:

Estadio, the much-anticipated Spanish eatery from Proof owner Mark Kuller, opened last week in the former Garden District space at 14th and Church streets. In addition to serving traditional tapas in the $5-$11 range, along with entrees priced from $12-$19, Estadio will also feature pinxtos--basically small snacks--in the $3-$6 range. Think of pinxtos as the mini-courses you get served in between courses at fine restaurants, I suppose.

During our recent walks by the restaurant in the evening, the space has been packed--and with seating for over 110 people in such a relatively small space, we have to wonder about the noise inside (although could not imagine it would be louder than Posto, one of the loudest restaurants we have been to). Metrocurean has posted a number of photos of the interior.

Speaking of much-anticipated restaurants (expansions, that is): At last week's ANC2B meeting, the ANC decided *not* to protest the expansion plans of popular Dupont eatery Hank's Oyster Bar. You may recall that there had been some concerns raised over a potential protest of the plans, with owner and chef Jamie Leeds insinuating that she might elect to reconsider her Dupont location in such a situation. Fortunately, things won't be getting that far: after ensuring that all concerns related to accessible restrooms and a single entrance were addressed, the motion to protest was withdrawn. Thus, the expansion plans of one of 17th Street's brightest restaurant stars will be able to move forward.

In terms of new restaurants: you remember Polly's, right? Sure you do. It was that place up on U Street that served greasy hangover food and featured cutesy tables and a somewhat surly waitstaff. Oh, and its abrupt closure earlier this year led to some, ahem, "reactions" by certain people. Well, Polly's space won't be empty much longer: as U Street Girl reported, it will soon be home to Desperado Burgers and Bar. For those of you clamoring for more "cheaper" food options in the area, and who were disappointed at the likely demise of "Standard", the proposed burger joint for the former Garden District space at 14th and S streets, this may be good news to you.

Also, it seems that they will have free delivery. But will your shoes still stick to the floor?

Finally: it seems that a new tacqueria will be opening in the long-vacant space next to the Black Cat on 14th Street. The space is directly adjacent to the rock club and, I have heard, there has been difficulty finding a tenant for the space due to noise concerns. Clearly, the owner(s) of the forthcoming Mexican eatery that will include a summer garden and sidewalk cafe is undeterred.

...and, yes, with a summer garden and sidewalk cafe, you can rest assured that the voluntary agreement negoatiations will be interesting.

Could Hank's Be Driven Out of Dupont?

Whenever the discussion on this blog turns from snow and graffiti removal towards neighborhood business issues--in particular, restaurants and bars--the conversation inevitably turns towards the role that the ANC and other neighborhood groups play in neighborhood business affairs. It's an argument I can honestly say has two sides.

For example, the ANC can provide a valuable service to the neighborhood and its residents by serving as a sort of "buffer" between the operators and managers of bars and restaurants in the neighborhood, and the citizens who live nearby. We have to live near these places seven days a week, the neighbors say, and thus our voice must carry great weight with those in the city tasked with granting liquor licenses and other applications. And so it is.

The tool used by the ANCs to accomplish this is, of course, the "voluntary agreement." The voluntary agreement, or VA, is somewhat misnamed, as there is little "voluntary" about it, at least from the proprietor's point of view. Restaurant and bar owners forsake the VA process at their own peril; without one in place, the ANC will almost assuredly carry their liquor license protest all the way to an ABRA hearing, where the applicant risks losing the opportunity to obtain a license entirely, likely dooming the business. And although my experience has been that applicants are generally able to negotiate an agreement that works for both the establishment and the neighborhood, there have also been occasions when the process has become unnecessarily adversarial.

Why am I bringing this up now, you ask? After all, the issue is pervasive, affecting every liquor license holder within the boundaries of the neighborhood--in other words, it's nothing new. And I would agree. But every once in awhile, an issue arises that highlights the problems when a handful of individuals in a position of authority behave in a manner that is clearly at odds with the best interests of the neighborhood. In this particular instance, the issue surrounds a popular neighborhood establishment and the process by which a VA was negotiated.

The most recent issue of Metro Weekly contains an interview with local chef/restaurateur Jamie Leeds, of Hank's Oyster Bar in Dupont and CommonWealth in Columbia Heights. Hank's, as you may know, has been one of the few new establishments to open with a liquor license on 17th Street in recent years, due to the liquor license moratorium currently in place there. A beacon of culinary indulgence amongst a sea of mediocrity, Hank's immediately established itself as a neighborhood favorite since opening in 2005. An award-winning establishment, Hank's is one of the few reasons (the other's being Trio's milkshakes and Pasha Bistro's gyros) to dine out along 17th Street these days.

In the interview, Leeds discusses her budding restaurant empire, as well as her future plans--among them, an expansion of Hank's in Dupont. And while there is near unanimous consent amongst patrons and neighbors alike that Hank's has been a positive addition to the neighborhoods, Leeds does not have fond memories of the negotiation process for the voluntary agreement that she engaged in with the Dupont ANC a group of neighborhood protesters. Here's Leeds, discussing the possible expansion of Hank's as well as her anticipation on dealing with the process again:

"...an expansion would be great. Everybody's been so positive in wanting it, in pushing me to do it. But, you know, if I come across any more resistance, it's going to be an issue. We have to amend that [D.C. Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration] "voluntary [neighborhood] agreement," and they have to agree for me to expand. It's kind of like I'm back in the same position. If we get any resistance, it'll just leave a very bad taste in my mouth. If it doesn’t enable me to expand, maybe I'll have to move Hank's altogether."

Now, let's be clear: there are a lot of ifs, ands, and buts there. There's no indication that Leeds has any intention of moving Hank's from its Dupont location. But it is nothing short of ridiculous that she should even consider doing so. The purpose of the voluntary agreement is to work out an arrangement for the proprietor to operate his or her establishment according to his or her own desires, in a manner that does not disrupt the lives of the people and businesses nearby. It is NOT a tool to extract every possible concession from the proprietor, and it is being abused if individuals such as Leeds consider the process so daunting and adversative that she leaves open the possibility of relocating the restaurant entirely if things go in that direction again.

Sadly, this is but a singular example in an ever-increasing list of instances where individuals operating within a group that has a degree of neighborhood authority has showed themselves to be out of sync with the direction of the neighborhood and its citizens. Last week, a story ran in the Current about a group of Foggy Bottom citizens--led by a Foggy Bottom ANC commissioner--who were rebuffed in their attempt to halt construction of the George Washington University project at 2400 Pennsylvania Avenue, on the grounds that the building--located in a dense commercial zone and across the street from one of the District's busiest metro stations--was somehow out of proportion for the neighborhood. Last spring, a dispute with Cafe Saint-Ex nearly led to the ANC going to court to protest a change in status for the popular 14th Street restaurant. And we know all too well the ongoing saga of the Wisconsin Avenue Giant project in Cleveland Park, which was delayed for nearly a decade by the actions of the neighborhood's ANC.

Some may read this and respond that the time has come to reform the ANC system in order to diminish the possibility that such situations could arise in the future. However, I think that is premature. As I mentioned at the beginning of this piece, I do believe that the ANC can play a productive role in the process of vetting new businesses for a neighborhood. In instances where a business is behaving as a nuisance and disturbing the neighborhood, the ANC--through the voluntary agreement--has the ability to step in and engage in efforts to force the business to behave responsibly, or risk forfeiture of their license. Such a process shouldn't be marginalized.

However, I would urge residents to play a more active role in the process. ANCs and others do not act in a vacuum; rather, they are comprised of elected officials beholden to the interests of their constituents. When a commissioner is shirking that responsibility, nothing prevents neighborhood residents from making their voices heard and working to ensure that their interests--rather than those of individual commissioners--are heard.

As far as the situation at Hank's goes, it will be interesting to watch the scene unfold. Leeds is currently in negotiations with the ANC on a voluntary agreement, which must be ratified by all parties and ABRA before going into effect. Hopefully, the process goes much more smoothly for all parties than it did five years ago. After all, there is no reason why it shouldn't.