Campus Master Plans

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

Yeah the very reason GU is fighting this so hard is because there are prior cases from very bitter disputes between neighborhoods and AU and GW. I know that in the case of AU when they built the law school on Mass Ave. there were death threats.

[Deleted]

hoyatables said:

Then you're not familiar with the experiences of most major universities in DC. Catholic, American, Howard, and especially GW have to put up with a lot of similar conditions as part of the campus planning and zoning processes.

Boston College, as well.

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

Just checked - the case is scheduled to be heard by the full court on July 27th. Oral arguments can be listened to online for those with an unhealthy obsession about DC zoning laws.

[reformation]

what comparable examples are you aware of?

[hoyatables]

reformation said:

what comparable examples are you aware of?

As we said, look no further than American and George Washington right here in DC. Both have had VERY hotly contested cases both for individual buildings and overall campus plans. I can't comment on whether Georgetown has had better or worse success, but perhaps others on the board can share their thoughts.

All I can say is that it is a VERY challenging and exhausting process for ANY university to undertake . . .

[hoyatables]

stpetersburghoya said:

Just checked - the case is scheduled to be heard by the full court on July 28th. Oral arguments can be listened to online for those with an unhealthy obsession about DC zoning laws.

Actually that's a hospital case. The University campus plan was decided on June 7, 2007 and remanded back to the BZA on a couple of issues (as you summarized quite well earlier in the thread).

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

hoyatables said:

stpetersburghoya said:

Just checked - the case is scheduled to be heard by the full court on July 27th. Oral arguments can be listened to online for those with an unhealthy obsession about DC zoning laws.

Actually that's a hospital case. The University campus plan was decided on June 7, 2007 and remanded back to the BZA on a couple of issues (as you summarized quite well earlier in the thread).

Its not on the summary calendar - its on the as of yet unpublished on the website regular calendar. It was heard by 3 justices on June 7th - the last step is a full hearing before all 9.

[EasyEd]

Why not get our friend, Nancy Pelosi, to earmark an approval for Georgetown to do what it wants?

[TBird41]

ed said:

Why not get our friend, Nancy Pelosi, to earmark an approval for Georgetown to do what it wants?

Gotta wait for conference committees to do that...

[hoyatables]

St. Pete -- you were wrong, the three judge panel had the final say -- no en banc review.

And the BZA issued its order last week providing explanation for the removal of conditions:
dcoz.dc.gov/orders/16566-H_1222-62.pdf

[kchoya]

hoyatables said:

St. Pete -- you were wrong, the three judge panel had the final say -- no en banc review.

And the BZA issued its order last week providing explanation for the removal of conditions:
dcoz.dc.gov/orders/16566-H_1222-62.pdf

I'm not familiar with the general tone and format of the orders of the BZA, but if it's anything at similar to the local boards and commissions I'm used to workign with, the BZA pretty much bitch-slapped the people that came up with those conditions.

"This condition not only possesses all of the flaws of Condition No. 12, but also has the potential to cause great harm."

Ouch. What, are they worried we're going to flying in recruits in helicopters? Why else would GU use the helipad?

[hoyatables]

kchoya said:

hoyatables said:

St. Pete -- you were wrong, the three judge panel had the final say -- no en banc review.

And the BZA issued its order last week providing explanation for the removal of conditions:
dcoz.dc.gov/orders/16566-H_1222-62.pdf

I'm not familiar with the general tone and format of the orders of the BZA, but if it's anything at similar to the local boards and commissions I'm used to workign with, the BZA pretty much bitch-slapped the people that came up with those conditions.

"This condition not only possesses all of the flaws of Condition No. 12, but also has the potential to cause great harm."

Ouch. What, are they worried we're going to flying in recruits in helicopters? Why else would GU use the helipad?

Technically, the first set of conditions came in 2000 from the prior BZA but conditions are usually proposed by the parties and in this case the conditions that were ultimately were likely struck by individuals that don't care for the University's campus planning efforts.

I note that, assuming there is no further appeal, this will be the last BZA action regarding a campus plan. Back in 2000 all Campus Plan cases were transferred to the Zoning Commission, but Georgetown's campus plan stayed with the BZA because it was being appealed (specific buildings went to the Commission for "Further Processing" during the same time). The BZA members sound happy to be done with campus planning, don't they?

[Gold Hoya]

hoyatables said:

St. Pete -- you were wrong, the three judge panel had the final say -- no en banc review.

And the BZA issued its order last week providing explanation for the removal of conditions:
dcoz.dc.gov/orders/16566-H_1222-62.pdf

Viewing this as nearly a complete outsider -- the 2000-2010 Campus plan is still being litigated in 2007? How does anything ever get done?

[hoyatables]

goldhoya said:

hoyatables said:

St. Pete -- you were wrong, the three judge panel had the final say -- no en banc review.

And the BZA issued its order last week providing explanation for the removal of conditions:
dcoz.dc.gov/orders/16566-H_1222-62.pdf

Viewing this as nearly a complete outsider -- the 2000-2010 Campus plan is still being litigated in 2007? How does anything ever get done?

No kidding. Welcome to the District of Columbia. I love my job.

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

hoyatables said:

St. Pete -- you were wrong, the three judge panel had the final say -- no en banc review.

And the BZA issued its order last week providing explanation for the removal of conditions:
dcoz.dc.gov/orders/16566-H_1222-62.pdf

You were right, I was wrong. To be honest I find the fact that DC has a Court of Appeals that has to hear some appeals automatically and no Supreme Court a little weird. Its a good thing we don't have to tell them if the Quad is finished - I say keep them guessing.

[hoyatables]

stpetersburghoya said:

hoyatables said:

St. Pete -- you were wrong, the three judge panel had the final say -- no en banc review.

And the BZA issued its order last week providing explanation for the removal of conditions:
dcoz.dc.gov/orders/16566-H_1222-62.pdf

You were right, I was wrong. To be honest I find the fact that DC has a Court of Appeals that has to hear some appeals automatically and no Supreme Court a little weird. Its a good thing we don't have to tell them if the Quad is finished - I say keep them guessing.

I didn't mean for that to come out as "ha ha" as it did -- I could absolutely understand the confusion! DC's court system is very strange. Of course, technically, I don't think it is an Article III court system, which explains the differences from state courts . . . !

[hoyatables]

stpetersburghoya said:

I know that in the case of AU when they built the law school on Mass Ave. there were death threats.

There's a new fiction book that was inspired by this case -- "Bordering on Madness." Check it out!

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

hoyatables said:

stpetersburghoya said:

You were right, I was wrong. To be honest I find the fact that DC has a Court of Appeals that has to hear some appeals automatically and no Supreme Court a little weird. Its a good thing we don't have to tell them if the Quad is finished - I say keep them guessing.

I didn't mean for that to come out as "ha ha" as it did -- I could absolutely understand the confusion! DC's court system is very strange. Of course, technically, I don't think it is an Article III court system, which explains the differences from state courts . . . !

If it isn't Article III, then was it most likely created under the Home Rule Act?

[hoyatables]

stpetersburghoya said:

hoyatables said:

I didn't mean for that to come out as "ha ha" as it did -- I could absolutely understand the confusion! DC's court system is very strange. Of course, technically, I don't think it is an Article III court system, which explains the differences from state courts . . . !

If it isn't Article III, then was it most likely created under the Home Rule Act?

No, I think the theory is that they are Article I territorial courts, just like the courts that govern Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. I don't remember the exact reasoning, other than that it made perfect sense at the time when I was immersed in the glory that is Federal Courts. I don't think it's an oft-discussed point, but it sounded like it was the type of technically-accurate distinction that could come back to bite an unwitting appellant in the butt.

[Gold Hoya]

OK, let's change the name of this thread to "arcane law school student and/or lawyer discussion"