JANUARY 21 (calendar day, January 25), 1935.-Ordered to be printed Mr. KING, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany S. 403] The Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was referred the bill (S. 403) to amend the act entitled "An act to authorize the Commissioners of the District of Columbia to remove dangerous and unsafe buildings and parts thereof, and for other purposes", and to further amend said act by adding at the end thereof new sections numbered 5 and 6, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon, and recommends that the bill do pass. Appended hereto and made a part of this report is a letter from the President of the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia urging the introduction and passage of the bill. Hon. WILLIAM H. KING, COMMISSIONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. Washington, December 28, 1934. SIR: Attached hereto is a draft of a proposed bill relating to the condemnation of dangerous buildings. The The existing law on this subject is contained in the act of March 1, 1899. amendments hereby proposed are relatively minor in character. They are: (1) To increase the scope of the bill to include excavations. The present law covers dangerous buildings, stagings, or other structures. Obviously an excavation may be equally dangerous and should be subjected to the same treatment. (2) Some difficulty has arisen because under the present law a conflict sometimes arises between representatives of the owner and representatives of the District as to who should repair or remove the property. Under the present law, after the building has been duly declared to be unsafe and the owner for 3 days refuses to cause the structure to be made safe, the District is empowered to proceed. It happens that the owner later decides to proceed and contractors representing him and the District both appear to do the work. The amendment proposed is that after the expiration of the 10 days in which the owner may act, the District shall have exclusive authority to make the repairs or to raze the building and the owner shall not interfere with the authorized agents of the District. (3) The present act declares that the existence on any unenclosed lot of an uncovered well, etc., is declared to be a nuisance. The proposed bill adds that the presence of abandoned vehicles, miscellaneous materials, or debris of any kind, insofar as they affect public health, safety, comfort, and welfare, shall also be considered a nuisance and the District may enclose the lot or remove the vehicles or debris. The new bill also contains certain procedural provisions in regard to the service of notice in proceedings for the condemnation of these buildings. The Commissioners respectfully request the introduction of this bill and urge its passage. Very truly yours, M. C. HAZEN, President Board of Commissioners, O TO AMEND THE LAWS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA RELATING TO THE CONDEMNATION OF INSANITARY BUILDINGS JANUARY 21 (calendar day, JANUARY 28), 1935.-Ordered to be printed Mr. AUSTIN, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany S. 406] The Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was referred the bill (S. 406) to amend the act entitled "An act to create a board for the condemnation of insanitary buildings in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes", approved May 1, 1906, having considered the same, report favorably thereon to the Senate with the following amendment and recommend that the amendment be agreed to and the bill do pass. Page 4, lines 21 and 22, strike out the words "is not subject to condemnation" and insert in lieu thereof the words "should not be condemned or ordered to be repaired". The present law on the condemnation of insanitary buildings in the District of Columbia appears in the Code of the District at title 20, sections 401 to 414, inclusive, being an act approved May 1, 1906, 34 Stat. 157, chapter 2073. It provides for a board which shall have jurisdiction to examine into the sanitary condition of all buildings in the District, to condemn those buildings which are in such insanitary condition as to endanger the health or lives of the occupants or persons living in the vicinity, and to cause such buildings either to be put into sanitary condition or to be demolished. After an order by this board requiring repair or demolition, the owner may institute proceedings in court and the court may modify, set aside or enforce the order of the board. The court may also appoint a committee of award, consisting of three persons, who take evidence respecting the amount of damages to be awarded the owner and thereafter this committee reports to the court the compensation allowed by them to the owner. Thereafter the court enters a judgment against the District for this amount of damages. Thus it will be seen that under the present law when a building is in such insanitary condition as to endanger the health or lives of the occupants or of persons living in the neighborhood, and the condemnation board and the court agree that such is the case, nevertheless the District government must pay the owner either the cost of repairs or the value of the building if it cannot be repaired. There seems to be no sound governmental reason why an owner who permits a building to become unfit for habitation should be reimbursed by the public for this condition. Moreover, the practical result of the law is that the District has been unable to proceed in many proper cases to correct flagrant insanitary conditions because of lack of funds for this purpose. It has been the law in the District since 1899 that in the case of dangerous and unsafe (as distinguished from insanitary) buildings, the repair or removal of the building is at the expense of the owner. The proposed amendment embodied in this bill (S. 406) is to require that where the board for the condemnation of insanitary buildings and a jury in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia agree that a building is in such a state as to sanitation that, for the protection of the occupants and persons in the vicinity, it should be repaired or demolished, the cost of such repair or demolition shall be borne by the owner of the property. Under the proposed bill section 14 of the act of May 1, 1906 (title 20, sec. 414 of the Code), is rewritten to provide that the court shall appoint a jury in these cases, consisting of three jurors, one of whom shall be an architect, one a physician or health officer, and the other a structural engineer or competent builder, who shall take evidence to find whether the building should be repaired or demolished or left as it is, and if it should be repaired or demolished, the cost should be borne by the owner of the building. Another amendment prohibits alterations where the cost would be more than 50 percent of the present reproduction cost of the building. Another minor amendment is that whereas the fee of the so-called "committee of award" under the present law is $5 a day, the jury fees under the proposed bill will be $8 a day, which fees would be included as part of the costs of the proceeding and thus would be levied against the party against whom the judgment of the court is entered. Appended hereto and made a part of this report is a letter from the President of the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia urging the passage of this legislation. Hon. WILLIAM H. KING, COMMISSIONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. SIR: Attached hereto is a draft of a bill relating to the condemnation of insanitary buildings. The present law on this subject is contained in an act approved May 1, 1906. The principal amendment proposed in respect to this law is major in character. Under the present law, if a building be condemned as insanitary and the owner refuses either to repair or remove it and the District exercises its statutory authority to make such repairs or effect such removal, the District may be required by a committee of award appointed by the court, to reimburse the owner of the property just as though it had been condemned for public use. The result of this is that the District has been unable to proceed in many proper cases because of lack of funds for this purpose. Moreover, there appears to be no sound governmental reason why the owner of a building which has become unfit for habitation |