Kalomara Heights Limited Partnership v. District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
655 A.2d 865 (1994)
- Written by Jody Stuart, JD
Facts
In January 1989, Kalomara Heights Limited Partnership (Kalomara) (plaintiff) purchased the former French embassy in the Sheridan-Kalomara area for $1,045,000. Kalomara planned to demolish the building to construct a 12-unit luxury condominium building. In June, Kalomara applied for a demolition permit. The Sheridan-Kalomara Historical Association had applied for designation of the Sheridan-Kalomara area as a historic district in February, and the designation was granted in August. Later that year, during hearings for the demolition permit before the mayor’s agent, Kalomara did not show that the proposed condominiums had social or other benefits that differed from other condominium projects. Kalomara showed that renovating the property as a single-family home would be unprofitable. The assessed value of the property had increased more than $250,000 since Kalomara’s purchase, and various chanceries had made unsolicited offers to purchase the property. A Kalomara partner testified that he believed Kalomara could recover its purchase price by spending a modest amount of money. In May 1992, the mayor’s agent denied Kalomara’s demolition permit, finding that Kalomara had not demonstrated special merit or unreasonable economic hardship. Kalomara appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ferren, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.