Repeals 2016 street closure plan

Summary#

B26-0872, the Closing of Public Streets and Dedication of Land for Street and Alley Purposes in and abutting Squares 3953, 3954, 4024, 4025, and Parcel 143/45, S.O. 14-20357 Repeal Act of 2026, would repeal the 2016 Act that closed part of 14th Street NE and accepted land for public street and alley purposes. The sponsor’s stated goal is to allow the land to return to its earlier lot configuration because the planned RIA project is not moving forward. The bill is introduced and is not law.

  • Repeals the 2016 Act; the bill does not itself set out steps for changing recorded lot or street records.
  • The sponsor says the repeal is intended to let the DC Surveyor’s Office return the property to its pre-2016 lot configuration.
  • The bill would take effect after mayoral approval (or a Council override of a veto) and a 30-day congressional review period.

What it means for you#

  • People who use the affected streets and alleys: The bill does not directly say whether or how public access would change. It repeals the law that closed part of 14th Street NE and accepted land for street and alley purposes.
  • People living in or near the affected area: The sponsor says the repeal would support restoring earlier lot configurations. The bill does not require the RIA project, or any particular replacement development, to proceed.
  • District government: The sponsor says the DC Surveyor’s Office would be authorized to return the property to its former lot configuration. The bill itself does not describe a process or direct the office to take specific steps.

Money#

No publicly available information on the bill’s estimated cost.

  • The bill adopts the fiscal impact statement in a committee report, but that report was not supplied.
  • The bill does not state a spending amount, staffing requirement, fee, or payment.

What is unclear#

  • The 2016 Act itself was not supplied, so its full legal effects and the current status of the affected streets and land could not be verified.
  • The bill repeals the 2016 Act but does not explain whether repeal alone changes recorded property boundaries or what further steps the Surveyor’s Office would take.
  • The bill does not say how public access to the affected street and alley areas would be handled.
  • No publicly available information is supplied about the fiscal impact statement or the timing and cost of any changes to records or land configurations.

Case for#

  • The sponsor says the mixed-use RIA project is not moving forward because of planning and economic feasibility concerns. Repealing the law passed to support that project could allow the land configuration to be reconsidered.
  • Returning to the earlier lot configuration could avoid keeping street and alley changes in place for a project that is no longer proceeding, if the repeal has that effect.
  • The bill does not require a new development project or specify what should replace the RIA project.

Case against#

  • The bill does not explain how repeal would restore the former lot configuration. The intended result may require steps the bill does not describe.
  • It is unclear what would happen to public street and alley access, or to the land accepted for those purposes, if the 2016 Act is repealed.
  • The bill does not set out a process, timeline, or oversight for the Surveyor’s Office to make any resulting changes.