Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Lee v. District of Columbia Board of Appeals & Review, 423 A.2d 210 (1980)

Citation
Lee v. District of Columbia Board of Appeals & Review, 423 A.2d 210 (1980)
Parent Document
Lee v. District of Columbia Board of Appeals & Review, 423 A.2d 210 (1980)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
1980-11-06

Other Sections in This Document (106)

Full Text

1,832 chars
My colleagues apparently would agree but for one fact: the District has elected to provide petitioners with gas and water pursuant to D.C.Code 1973, § 5-313 1-a decision which my colleagues believe moots petitioners’ standing. I disagree. Section 5-313 permits the Mayor to assume responsibility for eliminating housing code violations and to charge the property owner for the cost of doing so. The District, however, is under no legal obligation to undertake this responsibility; the plain language of the statutes states that it is within the discretion of the District to provide-and thus to withdraw-the utilities.2 It is inconceivable to me that the District’s election to provide such services for the time being under § 5-313 moots petitioners’ interest in enforcing the Housing Regulations against the only entity that can be legally bound to provide them, namely the owner of the building. That interest is especially well illustrated by the following reality: at any moment, the District could decide to discontinue its provision of utilities. This would leave the tenant-petitioners without any legal recourse, since the owner-the only party with a statutory duty to maintain utilities-is having its rights determined by virtue of this very proceeding. In other words, there will be no way for petitioners to contest a utilities cut-off against the landlord once the District has elected to discontinue its support under § 5-313. Under these circumstances, petitioners unquestionably comply with the jurisdictional prerequisites of our statute, D.C.Code 1978 Supp., § 1-1510, as persons “suffering a legal wrong, or adversely affected or aggrieved by an order or decision” of the Board (1) denying the tenants an opportunity to have their say in the variance proceeding and (2) granting the landlord’s requested variance.