Rhodes Tavern (preservation and Restoration): Hearing and Markup Before the Subcommittee on Government Operations and Metropolitan Affairs of the Committee on the District of Columbia, House of Representatives, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second Session, on H. Res. 532 ... November 30 and December 16, 1982
United States. Congress. House. Committee on the District of Columbia. Subcommittee on Government Operations and Metropolitan Affairs
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983 - 882 pages
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Other editions - View all
15th Street action additional Administrator agreed alley allow alternative appearance application approval architect architectural Arts Assistant Association Avenue block Board Capital Carr Company Chairman Citizens closing Code Commission Committee concern consideration considered construction corner cost Council court D.C. Law December decision demolish demolition Department District of Columbia downtown economic efforts estimates Exhibit existing F Street facade fact Federal feet floor funding hearing height Historic Preservation important interest interior issue Keith-Albee landmark legislative letter Mayor's Agent meeting Metropolitan Bank Building million moved necessary Oliver operating original permit plans possible present proposed question recommended record relocation Representatives requested restoration retained Rhodes Tavern significance space special merit Square structure tion Treasury urban Washington White House
Page 498 - Such a stringent rule may sometimes bar trial by judges who have no actual bias and who would do their very best to weigh the scales of justice equally between contending parties. But to perform its high function in the best way "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.
Page 500 - Every procedure which would offer a possible temptation to the average man as a judge to forget the burden of proof required to convict the defendant, or which might lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear and true between the State and the accused, denies the latter due process of law.
Page 492 - The second is a widely shared belief that structures with special historic, cultural, or architectural significance enhance the quality of life for all. Not only do these buildings and their workmanship represent the lessons of the past and embody precious features of our heritage, they serve as examples of quality for today. Historic conservation is but one aspect of the much larger problem, basically an environmental one, of enhancing — or perhaps developing for the first time — the quality...
Page 492 - Over the past 50 years, all 50 States and over 500 municipalities have enacted laws to encourage or require the preservation of buildings and areas with historic or aesthetic importance.
Page 536 - Surreptitious efforts to influence an official charged with the duty of deciding contested issues upon an open record in accord with basic principles of our jurisdiction, eat at the very heart of our system ' of government - - due process, fair play, open proceedings, unbiased, uninfluenced decision.
Page 203 - Regulating the maximum height of buildings on blocks immediately adjacent to public buildings or to the side of any public building for which plans have been prepared and money appropriated at the time of the application for the permit to construct the building under DC Code, sec.
Page 541 - The contention is without substance when considered against the long-standing practice in deportation proceedings, judicially approved in numerous decisions in the federal courts, and against the special considerations applicable to deportation which the Congress may take into account in exercising its particularly broad discretion in immigration matters.
Page 539 - Of course, we should be alert to the possibilities of bias that may lurk in the way particular procedures actually work in practice. The processes utilized by the Board, however, do not in themselves contain an unacceptable risk of bias. The investigative proceeding had been closed to the public, but appellee and his counsel were permitted to be present throughout; counsel actually attended the hearings and knew the facts presented to the Board.