These parcels, with the exception of parcel 175/30, which apparently was included to round out the area, were acquired by Adolph Gobel, Inc., and the Union Stock Yard Co. of New Jersey, in connection with the operation of a slaughterhouse and stockyards located at the intersection of Benning Road and Minnesota Avenue Northeast. Parcels 168/50 and 168/32 were at one time used for stockyard purposes. In 1936 it was proposed to develop further the stockyards and to construct a slaughterhouse. Before this could be done, however, opposition on the part of the public and this Department, in the interest of protecting adjacent parks, residential areas, and a Federal Housing project, resulted in the abandonment of the proposal to develop the stockyards and to build the slaughterhouse. Meanwhile the zoning regulations had been changed so as to preclude revival of the slaughterhouse proposal without specific authorization by the Zoning Commission after public hearings. The areas contain approximately 751,348 square feet and at the present are assessed at a value of $134,127. The value of these parcels was reduced subsequent to the abandonment of the stockyard and slaughterhouse project. These properties are located adjacent to a railroad and might be used as a site for a warehouse or loft-type building, in which could be stored materials and records or which might house temporarily certain activities susceptible of being decentralized. There is considerable demand at the present time for buildings of this type, and the acquisition of the properties in question for this purpose doubtless would cost the Government less than the acquisition of a site occupied by buildings which must be demolished. I am informed that the National Capital Park and Planning Commission concurs in this opinion. I invite your attention to the fact that under Reorganization Plan No. I, effective July 1, the functions of the Buildings Branch of the Procurement Division and of the Branch of Buildings Management of the National Park Service in connection with the selection of sites for public buildings and the determination of priority in which the construction of public buildings shall be undertaken, are consolidated in the Public Buildings Administration of the new Federal Works Agency. It would be appropriate, therefore, for the bill to provide for the acquisition of the properties to be undertaken by the Commissioner of Public Buildings under the direction and supervision of the Federal Works Administrator. I have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that the proposed legislation would not be in accord with the program of the President. Sincerely yours, E. K. BURLEW, Acting Secretary of the Interior. STATEMENT OF D. EDWARD CLARKE, REPRESENTING ADOLF GOBEL, INC. Mr. CLARKE. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I came into this picture in 1936 as a result of encountering some difficulty with our local authorities, meaning thereby the District Commissioners. When this plant was bought by the Adolf Gobel Co. in 1932 or 1933 from local interests here, they paid a considerable sum of money for it, which included the right to slaughter animals in the District of Columbia. The amount which they paid, if my memory serves me correctly, was predicated upon an appraisement made by some out-of-town appraisement company, the name of which I do not recall, but which is in the record. It was the American Appraisal Co. Mr. BALL. You say that the transfer of the property included the right to slaughter animals? Mr. CLARKE. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. That was mentioned in the deed? Mr. CLARKE. It was mentioned in the purchase. Mr. BALL. Where did the original right to slaughter animals come from? Did it come from the District of Columbia? Mr. CLARKE. Yes, sir; it came from two sources. Mr. BALL. That right was a purchasable one? Mr. CLARKE. Yes, sir; it was a purchasable right. Mr. BALL. Was there a time limit set up on the right to slaughter animals when it was originally granted? Mr. CLARKE. No, sir; that was to run indefinitely, or so long as they complied with the regulations of two governmental agencies, the first being the Bureau of Animal Industry, which is an adjunct of the Department of Agriculture. The right or permit from the Bureau of Animal Industry was a license to them when they killed and shipped in Interstate Commerce. In addition to that, they had to get their local permit and comply with the local health regulations. The Gobel Co. had both such permits, and were actually operating the plant when the fire occurred, which resulted in a considerable loss to them. Then there was a lapse of a year or more before the Gobel Co. could rearrange their affairs whereby they could raise the necessary money to recondition or rebuild this plant, in order to comply with the wishes and desires of the Bureau of Animal Industry in the Department of Agriculture. When they succeeded in straightening out with the Department the renewal of the permit, or the continuance of the permit, I should say, we then employed the most noted architect in the United States for the purpose of preparing for us plans and specifications that would not only meet the immediate needs of our business, but would provide for future expansion, both with regard to the quantity that we slaughtered and the facilities for handling it. That gentleman's name was Mr. Henchem, of Chicago, Ill. I should say that he was the man employed by Russia to set up their slaughtering plants over there after the present regime came into power. He was also employed by other countries for that purpose, and he really had a monopoly of the preparation of plans for abattoirs. We had our plans completed at very heavy expense, and it is the object of the bill to reimburse us for items of that kind. When those plans were submitted to the Department of Agriculture, after a great deal of difficulty, they were considered. Now, Mr. Chairman, do not think you can go down to the Department of Agriculture and get a permit to operate an abattoir. You must show them that it is to be done according to the most sanitary methods in every particular. Otherwise, you do not get the permit. So we complied with all their regulations. Then there was a question of what part of the Union Stockyards we were to lease. I will not show you the lease now, but they told us that we would have to have holding pens in which to put our stock. In other words, when this livestock was shipped in, we could not bring it right up in cars, run them out to the slaughtering plant. We would have to put them in holding pens, to be there inspected by the inspectors before they were slaughtered. That necessitated our making a lease with the Union Stockyards for six of their holding pens. The lease runs as high as $7,500 a year. When we arranged the lease, the Bureau of Animal Industry said: and We do not think it is good business, and we will not encourage you in limiting yourself in the lease to 5 years, but you ought to tie them up for a longer period than that, because, if you do not, the Union Stockyards Co. may come in and cut you off by asking an exorbitant rent, so you cannot do business. So, against my advice, my client insisted on negotiating with the Union Stockyards Co. a longer lease, and they are now paying the penalty for not following my advice. That is another element of damage. The CHAIRMAN. For what period was the lease finally consummated? Mr. CLARKE. For 15 years. That is what they had in mind when they drafted this bill. In the meantime, gentlemen, we had to obtain from the building inspector's office of the District of Columbia a permit. Now, this is something I would like for you people to bear in mind, because it is quite significant: When you apply for a permit for such a structure as we were rebuilding and remodeling at the large expense of $350,000, the contractor being the Turner Construction Co., of New York, they will give a permit to do certain things toward the construction of the building. You do not get your entire permit at one time. First, they give you a permit to build the foundations. The Turner Construction Co. had their entire crew down here, with their machinery ready to start. We completed our foundation, and were ready for our other permits. Then they said that they would not give us the permit until we changed our plans and specifications with regard to refrigeration and something else. Mr. BALL. Am I right in thinking that the building code of the District of Columbia is somewhat more drastic than that of New York and some other cities? Mr. CLARKE. I do not know what the building code of New York is, but this is a drastic building code we have here. Mr. BALL. I think it is a little more drastic. Mr. CLARKE. It is very drastic, and I hope you will not have any experience with it. So then we had to follow with a special crew for the purpose of revising the plans. That was some job, and it held us up for 2 months. Finally, at very heavy expense, we succeeded in satisfying the different departments. You have to satisfy every department in the District of Columbia before you can construct a building such as this. It is not like having one man in charge of the whole thing, but you must satisfy all of them. Mr. ELLIOTT. Will you include a statement of those various agencies that you have to consult? Mr. CLARKE. I can enumerate them now. First, we will say, is the material in the building itself, pertaining to brick, iron, and so forth. Then, you have the electric department, and then the plumbing department; and next you have the Sanitary Commission to deal with. Mr. ELLIOTT. Do I understand you to say that they issue the permits, one at a time? Mr. CLARKE. Yes, sir. Mr. ELLIOTT. And you must go ahead with the building before you get another permit? Mr. CLARKE. Yes, sir; so we had to finally pass all of these departments. Then, after we passed all of them, they said, "We are not giving you a permit." Then, there was nothing else for us to do but apply to a court of equity of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Now, you gentlemen may not know that our courts here do not act overnight, but you have to wait until you can finally reach a hearing. Then, after a very bitterly contested equity 224087-40-No. 2--2 suit, which we do not have now, because it is all civil now under the procedure, with law and equity courts after that contest, the court directed the issuing of the permit. After a lapse of 6 months moreand here is where I think the committee should grasp what we have suffered as a result of the attitude shown-the very day when I went down and paid the District of Columbia $450 as the balance on the permit on that very day, the District of Columbia, through its appropriate agencies, introduced in Congress a bill outlawing this abattoir. To hide their real intentions, they included in the bill all industries which they called heavy industries. That day we got a permit. Now, in the face of that bill, could we have immediately proceeded with our work? It would not have been sensible. Then, there were some hearings, and Mr. Neale, representing the Stockyards Co., and myself appeared before the District Committee. The chairman of the committee, Mrs. Norton, called the roll of the members present, and put it to a vote while we were both standing and saying, "Please let us be heard.” The committee voted to recommend to the House the passage of the bill. Mr. O'CONNOR. In other words, there was no hearing. Mr. CLARKE. No, sir; none at that time. The chairman did not stop me by calling for the Sergeant at Arms, but she did in every other way. Finally, some member of the committee said that this matter ought to be reconsidered, and it was then reconsidered. The vote resulted in a tie, and the chairman voted yes, and that sent it to Congress. That is as much of a hearing as we got before the District Committee on that bill. Then we were in pretty bad shape, and the Gobel Co. took the matter up with some Members of Congress. They saw the injustice of it, and presented the matter to the House, and the House sent the bill back to the committee for hearings. Mr. O'CONNOR. Of course, this bill has not passed either House. Mr. CLARKE. In the meantime, a companion bill has been introduced in the Senate. The Senate took it up in committee, and we had hearings lasting 2 or 3 months. Senator McCarran was the chairman of the committee, and he gave us every opportunity to show the injustice that had been done. In the hearings in the Senate committee it was developed that the bill was aimed directly at the Adolph Gobel Co. In fact, it was announced in the discussion by the corporation counsel, Mr. Seal, that that was the object of the bill. In view of the fact that this bill was pending here, and has not been reported out, so far as we are able to learn, what could we do? After it lulled down, we took up with our contractor the question of building, and found that the cost had gone up in excess of $100,000 over and above the original contract. So there we are tied to this property, with our machinery and equipment deteriorating, and it stands out there as an eyesore to the District and the public. Of course, somebody should take this property and improve it, because it is a suitable site for some public improvement. You can see the conditions now surrounding the property. I want to thank you gentlemen for the hearing. Mr. O'CONNOR. The Members of Congress from Maryland, both in the House and Senate, are interested in this matter. Senator Tydings, of the Senate Committee, and the other Members from Maryland, were very much interested in this matter when the hearings were held. They felt that justice should be done, and Mr. Kennedy, of Maryland, introduced this bill. He told us that he would try to get here this morning, but he had to attend a meeting of the District committee. Of course, a zoning regulation came along later. Mr. CLARKE. I am glad you mentioned that, Mr. O'Connor, it is very important. Shortly after the bill was introduced in the Senate. and the House, the Zoning Commission of the District of Columbia rezoned this property, or did something with it, that fixed it so that it is impossible now to open a slaughterhouse in the District of Columbia; so if we wanted to, we could not do it. These zoning regulations, as you gentlemen may recall, have been held to be constitutional, but as long as we were out there, and had the right to conduct this business, they could not pass such a zoning regulation affecting us. The CHAIRMAN. In accordance with the suggestion heretofore made, I think that at this point in the record, it would be a good idea to incorporate a statement of the various items of expense. Mr. CLARKE. We will be glad to do that. (The statement requested is as follows:) The value of the plant of the Gobel Co. as appraised by the American Appraisal Co., one of the outstanding appraisal companies of the country, is as follows: Packing plant: Railroad siding. Machingery and equipment. Walls, concrete floors, and runway of former buildings (which Excavation of new foundations which were to form a part of the [The above figures are based upon the cost of reproduction Value of the land at $15,000 per acre, approximately 8 acres $1, 365. 64 87,820. 70 94, 582. 86 5, 251. 32 9, 682. 96 6, 403. 79 6, 989. 00 120, 000. 00 In addition to the foregoing items, making up the values of the tangible property, there are certain items which must be taken into consideration and which are intended to be taken care of by that portion of the bill now pending which provides that the Secretary of the Interior is authorized "to adjust, compromise, or settle any claims for loss or damages sustained by the owners of said property by reason of the acquisition thereof or the loss of any right, license, or franchise connected therewith." These are: Payments to Turner Construction Co. in connection with the re $24, 564. 68 12, 367. 49 6, 651. 00 15, 000. 00 Slaughtering rights valued at.. Rent of the stockyard since the date that the legislation abolishing abattoirs in the district was introduced__. 150, 000. 00 The Gobel Co. believes from the informal conferences had with representatives of the Interior Department, that it will have no difficulty in arriving at a fair valuation of the tangible property, and that it can reach an agreement with respect to the damage which it has suffered. While the figures submitted, when taken together with the claim of the stockyards company will exceed the $500,000 figure, it is satisfactory to the Gobel Co. to have the bill limited to the sum of $500,000. Mr. BALL. From this map it appears that the property between the railroad and the Anacostia Road is zoned as industrial property. |