IMG_3216

We once looked at this one a few years ago in Brookland. I finally passed it again. So cool. I think it’s the only one I’ve ever seen that is under the front lawn like this:

IMG_3215


rustik_12th_st_ne
3523 12th Street, NE

More big news for Brookland – Rustik has signed a lease for 3523 12th Street, NE. Rhode Island Insider got the good word:

“As Diton Pashaj, one of the owners of Rustik, explains to the Insider, they have leased a building along 12th Street, near the corner of Monroe Ave, as the location of their new restaurant.”

For those not familiar you can see Rustik’s menu here.

3523 12th St, NE was the space that had the “Tamo Smoothies” coming soon sign up for ages. I asked Diton when he hoped to open the Brookland location and he said the news still hasn’t even sunk in with him yet. From the outside it looks like there is obviously a bit of reno that needs to happen so let’s revisit in a few months.

rustik_bloomingdale

Anyone know what the old NorBud sign inlaid in the concrete out front refers to? A former clothing store? Hope they’re able to preserve it!

rustik_norbud


brooklands_finest_12th_jackson_ne_solly_pug_sova-e1366554552769
12th and Jackson Street, NE

Update yesterday on Brookland’s Finest from the Brookland listserv:

“For your information, I attended a protester standing hearing this morning in the matter of the Brookland’s Finest liquor license. The purpose of the hearing was to identify who the valid protesters actually are as the matter proceeds.

Two churches had submitted protest petitions. Both of their petitions were dismissed for lack of standing as churches do not have standing to protest unless they are immediately adjacent. The two churches were First Church Christ Holiness at 1219 Hamlin St NE and Grace United Baptist Church at 1219 Jackson St. NE.

ANC Commissioner Carolyn Steptoe was granted standing on behalf of ANC 5B, as the ANC has standing to protest as a matter of right.

Three individuals were jointly granted standing as the designated representatives of 53 residents.

So there are two groups whose protests will move forward: ANC 5B and a group of 53 residents.

By contrast, 149 residents in proximity of Brookland’s Finest signed in support by endorsing a negotiated settlement agreement between the restaurant and the community.

Next steps: there will be a mediation session in early August to attempt to resolve differences. If not resolved, the matter will be heard at a full protest hearing open to the public on August 14th at 4 pm.”


945060_10102029110458224_1926681379_n

UPDATE:

Porter is still lost! Substantial REWARD for information leading to his safe return. Please help us find him! He is small (15lbs), red and white coat, looks like a mini husky or fox, 1 blue eye, one part blue part amber eye. On July 1, he ran out of 4403 2nd St. NE in the Brookland neighborhood. He was not wearing his collar at the time, and my friend no longer lives at that location. He has been reported seen near the metro tracks and construction areas close to the Brookland/CUA metro and Catholic University. According to the latest sighting (2 weeks ago on July 23rd), he was seen back in the neighborhood where he was lost, close to Webster St. NE and 1st St. NE, in an alley. It is also possible that someone has taken him in. If you see him, PLEASE do all of the following:

1. DO NOT CALL OUT, APPROACH, or CHASE him!! He is very skittish, and will bolt. I want him to feel safe and stay in the area. If he is with a person, please get as much information as you can so that i can locate and contact the person or the police.

2. CALL ME IMMEDIATELY at 202-681-1231. I do not care what time it is.

3. PLEASE KEEP HIM IN YOUR SIGHTS and FOLLOW HIM until I get there! I will compensate you for your time and effort.

4. TAKE A PICTURE of him and remember as many details as you can (precise location and direction he was headed, description of who he was with, if anyone or any other animal, condition- is he limping, does he look hurt, etc)

See www.facebook.com/findporterdc for more information. Thank you to everyone for all and any help. Please help me bring him home.


9120114363_117d3ecff0_z
Photo by PoPville flickr user johnmcochran2012

“Dear PoPville,

I have lived in my house in Brookland for five years. My home was originally on a double lot that was subdivided before I purchased it. The empty lot next store was in a tax sale mess plus I was told it was too small to build. 5 years later a neighbor bought the lot. He has since found a family to purchase it and they are trying to building a house. It has taken forever to get permits but within the past few days they passed zoning. The Lot is not big enough for a detached home so zoning is allowing the builder to build “half a semi-detached house” Pretty tough to understand. Well in order for it to be a semidetached one wall is projected to be built right on my property line. Less then ten feet from my house, there will be a 3 story house. There will be no way in my mind to build this without coming on my property. The builder knows I’m upset with the situation so he has little to no contact with me.

Have you heard of anything like this or seen it happen before?

Just to make it clear in case the family that is purchasing the lot happens to see the post. I by no way shape or form want to hurt their family and future home. But just want to protect my home and family. I am trying to talk to the family because the builder will not about my issues. My home is a stand alone home, and the other adjacent home is as well. So this “semi-detached” will never have another side. Seems crazy! I have asked the city what I am supposed to do because there is no way they can either dig a foundation for pour a slab with out being on my property. Plus there will be no way for the owners of the house to ever access this side of the house without having to come into my fenced yard. I just don’t want it to come off like I want to hurt the buyers. So just wanted to see if anybody has had a similar situation.”


turkey_thicket
Turkey Thicket Recreation Center located at 1000 N Michigan Ave, NE

Last night, a reader sends us an email originally sent to members and staff of the City Council, DPR and two neighborhood listservs:

“I had a very disturbing experience today at Turkey Thicket pool today. We arrived at 4:55pm, during a lifeguard “break”; no one would tell us how long it was. While we were waiting, we were approached by a lifeguard and another DPR employee, who asked me if my tankini sport shirt was a swimsuit. I told the woman (Kata) that it was my understanding sport shirts were OK as long as they weren’t cotton, due to an email from Sean Link (head of DPR aquatics) from last summer stating “If a bather has a shirt that is swim apparel, such as in this link, they are certainly able to wear it. (Those shirts are made of polyester, the shirt I was wearing was polyester, nylon and spandex, exactly what swimwear is made of). She said it was a difficult situation because she had asked other people to change when wearing similar swim attire, despite the fact that I might be right. I asked her why my shirt wasn’t acceptable and she said it wasn’t swim material. I pointed out that “swim shirts” which are explicitly allowed by DPR are not “swim” material. I said that I was planning to swim as I was wearing appropriate swim clothing. She walked away.

The other employee, a man, was very rude to me, so my husband asked for his name and supervisor’s name, and he refused to tell us. This had actually happened before – my husband took our daughter to the pool a few weeks ago, and this man said my husband couldn’t wear a sport shirt on the deck. My husband removed it, but asked for his name and supervisor, so he could find out the policy, and after stalling, he said his name was Timothy. I asked Kata (the lifeguard) what his name was and she said Marvin, so he had previously lied to my husband.

[We were also told today that only swimsuits were allowed on deck, no cover ups or T-shirts, and that “as soon as you leave the locker room you are ‘in’ the pool”. However, I have an email from Sean Link, who said “staff is aware of the rules regarding allowance of cotton cover-ups (and other pool-friendly attire) on the swimming pool deck.” Another email from Sean to the listserv last summer states “My staff should not prohibit anyone from wearing a t-shirt, whether cotton or some other material when not in the swimming pool. I share your frustration as it has been clearly communicated at our internal staff meetings. If a patron is sitting poolside in pool appropriate attire, with a cover-up on that is permissible.”]

While I was in the pool (approximately 20 minutes), I observed 8 individuals with mesh basketball shorts on, one with visible cotton underwear, two with cotton head wraps, one arm cast, and approximately 10 individuals on deck with shoes or tshirts. Even the lifeguards were wearing cotton shorts, mesh shorts, and mesh shirts (none of which were from the website indicated by Sean), and one of the on-duty lifeguards was doing flips off the diving board while wearing this mesh outfit. My husband asked why no one else was being instructed to change and Kata’s answer was “you haven’t been here all day, sometimes we ask people to leave.” But DPR staff did not ask anyone else to leave while we were in the pool.

The first time we were hassled at Turkey Thicket (for not showering first), we apologized and learned the rules. The second time, when my husband was asked to remove his shirt on deck (and did), he contacted DPR twice (and I contacted them once via Twitter) for clarification, with no response. But the fact that no one else was asked to change, including the dozens of other people wearing (according to the lifeguards) unacceptable attire, when taken with the fact that we are always in the racial minority at this pool, does not seem to be a coincidence.

Marvin returned after I had been in the pool for 10 minutes to tell me that his supervisor, Cecelia, said what I was wearing wasn’t a swimsuit. I asked him if she was there, to see what I was wearing, and he said no, she was on the phone. I said that what I was wearing was non-cotton and qualified as a swim shirt. He walked away and didn’t say anything else. Approximately 10-15 minutes later, two police officers walked in and told me that I needed to leave. They provided no information to me as to why I was being asked to leave, but I asked a lot of questions and figured out Marvin said he had had this issue with me specifically three separate times (I have never met him before) and that I was wearing cotton (I was not, and he knew it because he pulled on the back of my shirt to look for a tag) and that he had asked me to leave (to be clear, he had NEVER asked me to leave). The police, by the way, said it appeared that I was wearing a swimsuit when they arrived. We were told by the police we were barred from the entire facility (not just the pool) for a year, and that if we continued to ask questions to the police officers, we would be arrested and our daughter would be put in custody of social services. Furthermore, we were told that if we returned we would be arrested for trespassing, but the police would not provide copies of the trespass warning we were required to sign, and DPR staff refused to make copies. The fact that neither DPR nor the police are required (or even ethically obligated) to provide a reason for issuing a trespass warning on public property is unacceptable.

I find it appalling that DPR, despite the fact that my husband and I emailed DPR half a dozen times for clarification on the “swim shirt” and “no shirts on deck” rules (in addition to multiple community requests for this information that I am aware of), can’t get their act together, decide on a policy, post it clearly at each pool, and train their employees accordingly. Furthermore, why is the DPR employee in charge of the Turkey Thicket pool obscuring his name badge, refusing to provide his name and lying about it? Why, when asked for this information, did he call the police and have law-abiding, rule following, taxpaying citizens removed, rather than simply provide information that any public employee should be required to provide on demand? We have a right to know this information, and asking for it should not result in us being excluded from taxpayer-funded recreational facilities. The fact that the DPR rules for pool facilities are still listed vaguely as “proper swim attire” over a year after many community requests for clarification is ludicrous. That someone can be barred (not asked to leave, but banned for a year) from a public facility for wearing a piece of clothing of possibly (but not certainly) the wrong (but not unsafe or inappropriate) material, while at least a dozen other people wore definitively unacceptable materials without being harassed, is unfathomable. The fact that my husband was additionally barred apparently for asking for Marvin’s name and supervisor’s information is ridiculous. (more…)


View More Stories