Controversy Over Potential Demolition of Home Located at 16th and T Streets, NW


A friend of mine live nearby and has been forwarding me emails on the efforts neighbors are making to stop the demolition of this property. On Monday night at 7:00 pm (16th and T) there will be a group protesting the demolition of this “historic 1890’s home on the corner of 16th and T”.

Council Member Jack Evans has gotten involved sending an email to the DCRA Director and Deputy Director:

“Linda and Nick,

As I have indicated in previous emails to the both of you, many nearby residents and community leaders, including Rick Busch President of the Dupont Conservancy and Robin Diener President of DCCA, DO NOT WANT TO SEE 1841 16th Street NW demolished because of its historic value to this historic neighborhood. Please continue to work with the owners and please do every thing in your power to secure the building rather than demolish it. I understand that DCRA has ruled that this property is a public safety hazard, if there is a way in which we can stabilize and save the building please know that I strongly am in support that option. If there is anything that I can do to assist DCRA is stabilizing as thus saving this property please contact me directly.

Thank you.


I certainly support saving a historic home so hopefully the owner will be forced to make the appropriate repairs. Do you think historic homes should be saved rather than torn down even if it becomes a more expensive option? Should the owner be responsible for making the repairs?


64 Comment

  • Hopefully this situation is the push we need to come up with some “demolition by neglect” legislation that puts the onus on the owners of the property rather than the city. The city can’t do much under current laws so long as the owner pays taxes.

  • agreed, we need more teeth in laws and regulations that go about preventing “demolition by neglect”.

    what the owners of this building have done by letting it fall apart may not be “criminal” by the letter, but it sure as hell should be. let’s make sure that, if anyone else going forward lets this happen to a historic building, that their wanton neglect is criminal.

  • Ahoy !


    Moderation is in order.

    The loss of an 1890 structure is certainly lamentable and sad, but somtimes necessary.
    Each case is different and is evaluated individually as it should.

    A Demolition Permit is one thing. A Raze Permit is something else entirely.

    Last year, with interior walls collapsing around them, the tenants fled this house at the urging of the Fire Department and City Inspectors.

    So severe is the situation, that adjacent neighbors have had to relocate out of their own homes. This property is not detached, and is on the end of six such row houses built together 119 years ago.

    City Officials, including the Chief Building Inspector and the head of DCRA, concur with three different engineering reports and approve of the razing of this seriously unsafe structure threatening collapse of neighboring adjacent properties along with it.

    There are some builders who cut corners on new construction today in 2009 leaving latent conditions, just as in 1890. Despite being in a Designated Historic District at 16th and T Streets, structures are not built forever, and can and do reach functional obsolescence.

    The owner of this property is not an uneducated landlord. Nor is she a criminal.


  • Hah! Get real. If the community or the city feels that a property is so valuable that they want to see it everyday, then they can pony up the money to pay for it. Whatever the burden it is on the city to pay for things like this, it’s a much larger burden on an individual.

    It takes a pretty big set of cajones to come and tell someone what they can/not do with the property for which they scrimped and saved to purchase. If anyone wants to set up a trust to cover the hundreds of thousands of dollars it will likely cost to save this building, then maybe they can have a vote. Otherwise, go save up your own money and buy your own property.

  • There is nothing ‘historic’ about this building. Hopefully an innovative, startling 30-story tower will go up in its place, a construction that a city in the 21st Century could be proud of.

    Oh wait. This is DC.

  • Reformed Somali writes nearly as if, well, he’s paid by the owners. Hmm, very legal.

    Amy Mazur not an uneducated landlord? Then why did she run an apartment building in this address for years while ignoring proper permits and licenses? Thanks for confirming she knowingly violated the law.

    An engineering report blamed the owners, saying negligence

  • Here’s the full history on the lovely couple who have created this blight on the neighborhood. And it appears the Wash Post mentioned these negligent owners back in 2008 also:

  • If the owner is so edjicated, why was she renting out a collapsing house to human beings? she was employed, probly with a decent salary. she could have fixed it up–sounds like she didn’t want to call the vet for her cash cow. this kind of thing SHOULD be against the law, and i gather it isn’t. why didn’t Jack Evans get on HER case?

  • Once again, “historic value” used by a bunch of nosy meddlers to force someone to do what they want with property that doesn’t belong to them. If they want to tear it down, let them. It belongs to them.

  • “The building was designed by architect Nicholas Haller and constructed in 1890 as part of six row houses in a unified ensemble. As the prominent corner house, 1841 is the key architectural element in the group. Its demolition would create a ‘missing tooth’ in the 16th Street Historic District in which it is located.”

    – DC Preservation League & Dupont Circle Conservancy

    The building is obviously historic. Heck, it’s in a designated historic district. It’s old. That’s the city law. Why should the owners be rewarded for negligence in the face of that law, that any of us have to abide by? ALL of the engineering studies say the building COULD be saved, but at high cost. Well, make the owner, living in her $2m home who couldn’t be bothered over decades to pay for the most basic maintenance, pay up.

  • please save this place.

  • Maybe “historic renovation” contractors should just accept less money for doing their work? If the problem is the cost of renovation then maybe the cost of renovating the property should be mandated by the city government? Maybe the contractors should be required to hire DC high school kids (16 or older of course) to do the renovation as a part of the city’s summer of jobs program and the proceeds funneled back into our crumbling schools? Maybe all properties in the district should be returned to their pre-1968 condition with leaky windows, radiators and 2-wire fabric insulated electric wires? Maybe the city could designate my alley a “historic alley” and ask all the residents (yuppies, retirees, city workers, families, singles, and others) to pay $4-5k to have the cobblestones replaced? Maybe we could ban all cars and return to horse and buggy with chimney sweeps roaming the streets of DC like a Dicken’s novel?

    Or maybe the city should own all the buildings in the city and landlords can just act as property managers? We can designate the entire city historic (it is old afterall) and the city could mandate and fund repairs to all buildings? Then all the low rent, not-for-profit employed renters in the city who contribute so much to the community can have pretty buildings to stare at while their paltry tax contributions bleed the city dry for another generation.

  • I understand PoPers dig house porn, but you folks really think there should be a law against tearing it down??? Look–I think cool, historic architecture is great, and DC has a lot of it, but come on. These guys own it. It’s structurally unsound. YOU buy the property if you like it so much, and quit trying to turn something into a political decision when it’s shouldn’t be. And if someone says, “Well, the community should have a say in all this…” Well, the community should PUT UP (cash) or SHUT UP instead of whining to Jack Evans. Dupont Conservancy probably has some friends with deep pockets…

  • all of you anonymous posters who are so quick to claim that we should all shut up and buy the house ourselves are missing the point here.

    there are rules regarding upkeep of property. the owner of this property deliberately flouted the law. they should not be rewarded for their negligence. they should be forced to make things right.

    it’s not our responsibility as residents to pay for this, it’s their responsibility as property owners. don’t try to move the blame away from the guilty parties here.

  • Hellz yes, make the owners pay, if you truly advocate for both the rights *and* responsibilities of ownership.

    If you had a house next door, rotting by neglect over the decades, garbage and water in the basement, structural issues threatening your adjoining house, ALL because the owners were too busy chillaxing in their $2m home many neighborhoods away, you’d be screaming for the city to do the repairs already, and make the negligent owners pay.

    That’s what we, the neighbors, demand of our city and of these negligent owners.

  • IMGoph, JMan,

    That’s just a roundabout way of saying, “We care about saving this building, but not enough to actually pay for it.”

  • See, Ronald, Coase.

  • Why should anyone pay for these law-flouting mistakes, except the property owners?

    And tell you what, I’ll happily buy the place. Just bring it up to the most basic code first, and I’ll buy.

    But no, let’s be clear about what you want: to allow the negligent, law-flouting, absentee slumlord owners to sell the property on their terms. Building demolished, slate wiped clean for them, all profit on the property, with no cost of their own unmet burdens.

    If that is not THE definition of “demolition by neglect,” I don’t know what is. You want to enable that, and it’s shameful.

  • Property ownership rights end when property owners neglect their homes to the point of threatening the lives and property of those next door – which this owner (no matter her station) has done.

    The city should stabilize the structure, bill the owner, and if she fails to pay, sell the property at auction.

  • It’s a once-lovely building, but I’m not sure what makes it worthy of all the fuss. And, hell, sometimes old houses . . . are just too old to save. And restrictions make it less likely that a more responsible property owner will buy it . . . . It seems to me that the focus perhaps ought to be on minimizing risk to the public and the adjacent property owners who really are innocent in the matter.

    The city coming in and doing repairs? Seriously? Even if it is possible, do you really think the city government would do a half-decent job? Or just line the pockets of whoever is engaged in million-dollar graft, corruption and embezzlement these days? While doing a half-assed job that left the property tied up in liens and the neighbors at risk of losing their homes too?

  • Thx for the many queries and ponderings, Hoodrat, but I’d prefer to stick with the law as it regards historic structures in historic districts. It’s pretty basic. Owner keeps up the building. If not, city contracts out the work, and bills the owner. (Another option: owner puts up the property for sale, an option some have cutely advocated here; fine, putting a property into sale carries its own requirements, incl. bringing the place up to code, again, owner’s responsibility).

  • UNderstood that “we” shouldn’t have to pay for it. Understood that the neighbors have a cause of action against the owners. That’s different than “we get to decide” what someone does to their property. Let them tear it doewn, let them build at their own expense something that satisfies the HP Fascists. And yes, understood that this means I think “historic” preservation is idiotic in a city where almost everything is allegedly historic. The fact that the City published a brochure touting this as historic is irrelevant, because the HP folks think everything is historic.

    Aside: I personally think blocking off the whole sidewalk is a little ridiculous/alarmist.

  • haha, it’s hilarious to think that the vaunted “property owner” should just be allowed to tear down something that has been in a historic district for decades and allowed the property to deteriorate to the point that it threatens neighbhoring homes. Sorry, but in no legal world do you have a “right” to do that. You live by the laws of your jurisdiction. This is nothing new, nor is it unique to DC.

  • I’m not understanding why the owners aren’t being fined by the city to pay for the restoration and the damage done to both the tenants and neighbors. I don’t really see that historic preservation has anything to do with it.

  • I lived across the street from this house in the early 90s and it was in bad shape then. Anyone who tries to claim that the landlord wasn’t aware of the problems or is a victim of the mean old historic code is smoking some strong Somali weed.

  • Some good friends of mine lived in this house in 1992. I spent a great deal of time there.

    In 1992 it was seriously decrepit and in need of much maintenance. That’s 17 years ago. It’s too bad they didn’t choose to sell at the top of the market when someone who gave a crap could have bought it and restored it before it was too late. I hope it gets saved. It was a truly gorgeous house inside despite the deferred maintenance.

  • Nobody buys anything in this city without knowing they’ll have to deal with an HPRB. It adds value to the city and you have to be willing to pay for it.

  • I’m with jae. Why hasn’t this slumlord been fined half to death?

    Perhaps the reformed somali pirate can explain to us why a landlord who lets a property deteriorate so thoroughly that her tenants have to evacuate in the middle of the night is not a criminal.

  • JMan – I know that such means are often used to restore properties. It just seems like they come with their own costs, but maybe it is workable here. I don’t know. And I just can’t get too fussed about the “historic” designation when it just means “really old.”

  • Amy Mazur bought the house, she neglected the property she knew what she was getting into. I say, let ’em demolish the house on her dime!

  • can’t the deecee taxpayers SUE these kinds of landlords if they let their property go to wrack and ruin over many months or years? can’t WE haul them into court and make them keep their property liveable? how do we do this?

  • Oh, and certainly the property owner pays! Regardless of whether it is ultimately demolished or repaired. Right? Am I missing something? Isn’t the question what the property owner should be forced to pay for? I guess I am just okay with a decision to demolish if it is cheaper and safer.

  • ummm, yes, “historic property” in an “historic district” does usually mean the structure is “really old.” Strange that you see that as a possible pejorative enabling a dismissive attitude towards negligent owners.

  • interesting photos from the interior of this place

    how does this happen?! this is not ordinary neglect. there are a lot of older people in my hood without the money to do a whole lot of maintenance and their houses aren’t distintegrating to this extent.

  • WDC and jae….right on! throw the book at landlords like this. if fenty wants stars in his crown, he should hire some badass like Michelle Rhee to clean up this housing mess. when common sense and the environment finally dictate the end of suburbs and people driving all over heck and gone for thisandthat, DC will be perfectly placed to house them. you only have to go to paris to see how the french take care of old properties. the workmanship on renovations is breathtaking.

    i also think it’s a great idea to hire all these out of work kids to work on renovations. an old friend is married to a man from holland. when he was a kid, everybody had to learn how to do wiring, plumbing, carpentry…the works. you couldn’t get married where he lived unless you had an apartment, and when you got the apartment, it was totally bare with two wires hanging out of the ceiling. you not only had to furnish it, you had to complete it yourself: flooring, plumbing, wiring, the works.

    why oh why can’t we do anything smart like this? DC can lead the way.

  • Maybe they should have a law that allows the residents evicted due to neglect (like those here) get to move into the owner’s home and use their pool until repairs are made. That will certainly focus the owner’s efforts.

  • JMan – see my followup. The point is not to be dismissive of neglect. Of course the owner pays; even if she wasn’t negligent, she pays. If she was, she should be fined too. I am just wary of historic designations that make it difficult to make the best use of property. And, depending on the facts, demolition might be better for everyone. I don’t see any inherent value in “old” if there is no actual historic value. New homes can also be attractive and add value to a neighborhood if well-planned and constructed.

    I just bought a home – an old one – but in house-shopping, I intentionally avoided homes in historic districts. I could afford the homes, just not the extra permitting and headaches associated with any proposed improvements. A little research on one home convinced me that the improvements I wanted to make would be difficult and maybe impossible (especially since I am unwilling to bribe public officials and neighborhood associations).

  • Hoodrat: I don’t understand the relevancy of your personal aversion to historic districts, to the negligence of the owners in this matter. Anyway, the owner in this instance could certainly afford the upkeep: according to the joint release from the Conservancy and Preservation League, she lives in her own several-million-dollar home comfortably neighborhoods away. From those interior pics posted by eric, it looks like she thought $40 for a slap of paint every decade would suffice. Wow, load bearing shore-a-wall paint, now at Home Depot?

  • i was on the fence about this until i saw those interior pictures. that big chunk of plastered-together brick that dropped onto a chair in the second floor could have killed someone.

    how does an occupied house’s brick get to that state? kind of scary if you ask me – could this be happening behind my plaster?

  • @Hoodrat: Have fun when your neighbor puts up one of those hideous vinyl-sided pop-ups.

  • Hmmm, true, my personal aversion to the historic designation isn’t relevant. But the justification for a more expensive (and possibly, less safe) fix – forcing repairs rather than demolition – is the property’s supposedly historic nature. And I don’t get it. It was certainly lovely at one time. But IF a new construction might also be lovely and safer and cheaper – for everyone, the house being old doesn’t seem like a good reason to prevent a better use of urban land. (Even if the property owner is billed – there are costs to the city in the process. And if the owner doesn’t pay up, the property remains old and encumbered and it becomes even harder to sell to a responsible owner).

    Sweet jebus, those interior pics look awful. I’m new to this home ownership thing, but I don’t understand how that happens.

  • The exterior may have historic value, but the interior lost almost all historic value when it was chopped up into apartments. At this point I doubt it can be saved. It needs more than shoring up or reinforcements. It needs to be rebuilt brick-by-brick. At which point, it isn’t really historic anymore.

    Where were the community and DCPL when the tenants were complaining for years about the decay of this building? Nice of them to complain now, after the tenants and neighbors were evicted and forced to flee, but why weren’t they vocal about the problem long ago, when something could have been done?

    At this point, I think the community should be focused on preventing this couple from owning any properties in the district.

  • The owners have owned the place for a long time. They bought it very very cheaply in the 70s, lived in it for a while, and then rented it for at least the last 15 years. They did little to nothing to keep it up despite the repeated nagging of tenants, neighbors, the city, etc… Assuming I guess that they could ditch it on someone else at peak market without paying for the repairs.

    Woops! Market is falling downnnn house is falling downnnn…

    If there was ever a reason for a historic preservation group and the city to step in, this would be it. The pity for the owner/investor comments are grossly misplaced in this situation, and even if it is going to cost them more on the backside, the city should take the owners to task finally and not allow them to continue to flaunt the law and the integrity of the ‘hood to milk what’s left of the property to the detriment of everyone else.

  • Re: the last few comments about how this happens:

    A large part of the decay comes from the decay of the brick mortar joints. Repointing, sometimes conversationally misnomered brick pointing or tuckpointing, is the process by which these mortar joints are repaired. All brick mortar deteriorates due to age, water, and wind, and needs to be maintained and repaired.

    Another problem is the foundation. The ground underneath any structure has the potential to shift or change and inspections should be made to identify any new weak points.

    Another problem in older homes is plumbing. Often these older homes were not built to support the weight of plumbing fixtures. Tubs, sinks, and toilets are heavy. Fill up a tub with water and you put even greater stress on the structure. In some cases it is possible, if the fixtures are stacked on the floors, to reinforce the structure with steel to prevent catastrophic failure.

    With the conversion of the home from single-family to apartments, there may have been construction that couldn’t be supported by the original structure. There may also have been removal of key structural elements during the conversion.

    I find it hard to believe that the owners of this building didn’t recognize the problem. But I also wonder where the city building inspectors were all this time. This didn’t happen overnight.

  • Edit: the decay you describe took place due to water invasion. Owners allowed water to pour down through the chimneys and inner walls, which deteriorated the walls and foundation areas underneath.

  • Wow, thanks for the interior photos. I too am really curious as to how that happens. Early on in the post a lot of attention was focused on how the owner had neglected basic, routine maintenance. I’d like to know what basic and routine maintenance would have prevented this mess. I have a VERY hard time believing that routine maintenance is the cause here.

    I think the owner is utterly irresponsible for renting the house out in this condition. I think renting a house out in this condition should be criminal. That said, one of the residents featured in the article above had been living in the house since 2006. Surely her lease expired at some point and yet she continued to rent.

  • “Another problem in older homes is plumbing. Often these older homes were not built to support the weight of plumbing fixtures. Tubs, sinks, and toilets are heavy. Fill up a tub with water and you put even greater stress on the structure. In some cases it is possible, if the fixtures are stacked on the floors, to reinforce the structure with steel to prevent catastrophic failure.”

    These houses actually did have running water and bathtubs when they were built, you know, and those fixtures, as well as the original pipes and radiators, weigh a lot more than anything you’d install today. Additionally, floor and wall tiles in old houses like this are set in several inches of concrete, unlike the much lighter concrete backer board that is used these days. This stuff weighs thousands of pounds.

    These old houses are built to withstand a hell of a lot more than any new house. It’s very unlikely that remodeling would compromise the structural integrity of a house like this because of weight.

    That notwithstanding, that house has never been seriously remodeled. It’s a group house with one kitchen, it is not configured as apartments.

  • Those interior photos are horrifying. I’ve had some seriously lame landlords over the years, but I cannot imagine anyone renting out a house in that condition. WTF is wrong with this woman?

    I work in preservation and would love to see this building saved… but I worry it may be beyond saving. Either way, the owner should have to pay for whatever gets done.

  • “I have a VERY hard time believing that routine maintenance is the cause here. ”

    It’s extremely likely that this is the cause of the problem. As someone else said this is almost certainly due to long-term water damage deteriorating the mortar. The house probably had roof leaks that were never addressed, causing water to run down the inside walls, or serious mortar problems on the exterior that were similarly not addressed and allowed water to invade through the cracks.

    Minor settling is common and not generally a problem for these houses, but if it causes cracks in the mortar on the exterior, they need to be patched so water does not invade. Corner houses and end units are more likely to experience such settling than interior units. And generally, weathering over the years can cause the mortar to deteriorate from the outside requiring repointing as others have noted.

  • Gotta love the limousine liberals from NW that are actually slum lords… Hilarious!! DCRA should throw the F-ing book at the them. FYI, I’m also a liberal, minus the limo and plus a .45.

  • @EdTheRed I’m w/ hoodrat. when I purchased I made sure not to buy in a historic district. While I have to live w/ the threat of an unsightly popup. I do not have to get permission of a board to replace a leaky window, or perform other routine maintenance work. I would support degrees of historic district, perhaps more along the lines of tougher zoning (height, some material requirements) rather than the vague, it’s old you must preserve it regardless of cost, regulations that exist today.

    Given the disfunctional nature of dcra and how much of a pain it is to get a permit in the first place, the following from their site is enough to scare almost anyone away from a historic property. Extra work and submission to a board known for their arbitrary decisions.,a,1284,q,570587,planningNav_GID,1706,planningNav,|33515|.asp

    Are additional application materials required for historic review?

    Yes. In addition to the standard permit application requirements, a submission for HPRB review must include comprehensive photographs of the property and two sets of architectural drawings sufficient to indicate the proposed exterior design. In historic districts, photographs must show the property within the context of adjacent structures or the immediate neighborhood. If necessary for review, HPO staff may request additional information.

  • Wow stoopid me I thought this was a thread about a case of demolition by neglect, not indulgent “tell us your personal gripes about living in an historic district or not.”

    Anyway, back to the important stuff: don’t forget to stop by the rally, this evening, 7pm at 1841 16th St NW (16th & T).

  • Why not do an emergency taking using eminent domain of the property, pay out the owner, charge her with neglect-related crimes, force her to plead to an amount equal to her eminent domain-payout, and put the thing up for one of those property auctions to a credible developer?

  • For those who say anyone interested in saving this historic home should just buy it, I wonder why we have any zoning laws? Property-rights nuts feel they can do anything they want with thier house, but forget (or don’t care) that their actions have a significant impact on the rest of the neighborhood. The community rightly recognizes the value to all of having an attractive, historical neighborhood that makes people want to live here. This results in increased property values and enjoyment for all.

    Can you imagine if your neighbor decided to build a plywood shack nextdoor? Or a chicken farm? Or run a slum tenement like this place? Because of this we have zoning and historic preservation laws.

    Bottom line – there outa be a strict law against demolition by negelect, and the property rights folks should all move out to Idaho where they can enjoy their unfettered property rights!

  • i’d be fucking livid if my neighbor allowed their house to fall into such a state as to force me out of my home.

    aside from that, its dumbfounding that people don’t understand the intrinsic value in historic buildings. think about all the interesting places and neighborhoods in DC. does west end come to mind? k street? how about NoMa? maybe you prefer Roslyn over the architecturally older neighborhoods. most people don’t. we look at our older neighborhoods as our definitions off our city. we go out to eat and drink and socialize in old rows. we make decisions there. it informs our sense of who we are. and most importantly, we spend money there.

    there is inspirational value, creative value and hard economic value in historic buildings. they are and should be treated like a resource.

    the argument that there are plenty of historic buildings in our city and therefore we shouldn’t be too worried is a massive failure of understanding. Yes, we have more historic buildings and areas than nearly any city our size, and bigger. but we’re the capitol of the USA. we should. plus, we’ve little else to offer. the future of american cities is arts and entertainment. history is part of this cultural tourism. we have a competitive advantage in this regard.

    *steps off soapbox and goes back to filling out TPS reports*

  • Interesting question: anyone know WHEN this area was designated an historic district? I would see slightly more of an argument for the stooge owners if, essentially, they had these restrictions placed on them after they originally bought the place.

    That said, I’m sure that when you buy in an historic district, all the covenants and restrictions that come along with that require your signature at closing, recognizing that there are things you can’t — and things you must — do as part of that historic designation. It’s complete BS that someone who didn’t want to live by those terms could basically just let a house fall into such disrepair that the obligations they had under the law get waived. Regardless of what happens to the house, it would be nice if DCRA had some authority to impose punitive measures on these folks, the same way they can nail you to the wall to the tune of $10,000 for every permit violation.

    Moreover, I am very sympathetic to the neighbors here. There are common structural elements with the other attached homes, and it’s almost certain these dopes have royally screwed over their neighbors with their negligence. As someone who owns an attached rowhome, I learned the hard way that shoddy structural work by a neighbor along the shared wall can have really nasty effects — from wall sagging that damages finishes to the creation of space that water can get into. Rowhomes are such a common architectural feature in this town, whether you’re in a historic district or not, DCRA’s permissiveness and lack of enforcement in these situations really allows a lot of this type of sh*t to get passed on to unsuspecting neighbors and calls for greater oversight. I hope the neighbors sue the pants off them.

  • I knew some people who lived there (and I used to go to parties there a lot) and there was a story that Douglas MacArthur used to live there.

  • Re: Greenstein DeLorme and Luchs…Ahhh, this explains A LOT…Richard Luchs is the exploiter of the 95/5 loophole that evicted many, many folks from their rental properties before it was closed. They are notorious for representing the slummiest of slumlords.

  • it’s scary to read all the comments i’ve seen online lately from people–young dudes to old women–bragging about their sidearms! holy toledo! i don’t think they want to kill anybody, but that’s the only reason to have a pistol. unless they’ve got so much money they love to go to target ranges and blow away money.

  • I’m sorry but I have heard several stories of owners using this type of excuse to demo something that they knowingly let get into bad condition. I believe the call is demolition by neglect. Sorry houses like this don’t get that way without active or actively passive assistance.

Comments are closed.