WASHINGTON — Members of the public voiced opposition to President Donald Trump’s proposed 90,000-square-foot White House addition Thursday, calling it “ugly,” “grossly out of scale,” and an “invitation for corruption” at a federal review hearing that drew more than two hours of testimony. Of 31 people who testified before the National Capital Planning Commission, virtually all urged the panel to reject or substantially revise the project, which carries an estimated $400 million price tag that Trump plans to cover with donations from wealthy individuals and corporations with active business dealings with the federal government.
Despite the public pushback, the commission’s approval process showed no sign of slowing. A final vote is scheduled for April 2.
The hearing was one of the last formal public checkpoints before the commission casts its vote. The U.S. Commission of Fine Arts has already approved the project, and a federal judge last week rejected a legal bid by the National Trust for Historic Preservation to halt construction temporarily, leaving the commission’s April 2 vote as the principal remaining gate.
Funding arrangement draws corruption concerns
Speakers focused heavily on Trump’s plan to finance the estimated $400 million project through donations from wealthy individuals and corporations, many of which have active dealings with the federal government.
Abigail Bellows, senior policy director for anti-corruption and accountability at Common Cause, a nonpartisan grassroots organization, called the arrangement a “golden invitation for corruption.”
Diane Marlin, who recently retired as mayor of Urbana, Illinois, urged the commission to slow down. “I urge you to send this back to the drawing board,” Marlin said. “Take the time to get this right.”
“It’s ugly. It’s just ugly. It’s too much,” said Kye Rowan, who described herself as an ordinary citizen with no architectural background.
Rebecca Miller, executive director of the DC Preservation League, called Trump’s proposal “disproportionately large and impersonal” and suggested the federally owned Mellon Auditorium on Constitution Avenue — a few blocks from the White House, with a meeting room that can seat 2,500 people — as an alternative. Will Scharf, a top White House aide whom Trump named to chair the commission, noted that concerns about the donation-funded financing model were beyond the panel’s scope.
Trump appointees on commission face credential challenge
Jon Golinger, an attorney representing Public Citizen, a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization, used his testimony to challenge the qualifications of Scharf, White House deputy chief of staff James Blair, and Stuart Levenbach, the government’s chief statistician — the three commission members Trump appointed last year. Golinger argued that commission members should have city or regional planning experience and that Trump had placed the three on the panel to “rubber stamp” his projects. He called on all three to recuse themselves from the ballroom vote and to resign from the commission.
Scharf responded directly. “You’re just completely wrong,” he told Golinger, citing his background in real estate law, his past work for the Missouri governor, and his service on state boards dealing with housing and development, including a rewrite of Missouri’s historic preservation tax credit program. “So to say that I lack the credentials to serve on this commission is, frankly, insulting,” Scharf said.
Project has cleared earlier legal and regulatory hurdles
The National Capital Planning Commission is one of two federal panels whose review the project requires. The U.S. Commission of Fine Arts has already signed off on it.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation, a private nonprofit, asked a federal judge to temporarily halt construction until the White House submitted plans to both federal panels and to Congress and opened the process to public comment. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon rejected that request last week; the trust has said it plans to file an amended lawsuit.
Trump had the White House East Wing demolished in October to make way for the proposed addition.
Turnout lower than anticipated; written opposition substantial
More than 100 people had registered to testify Thursday, but about two-thirds did not appear; Scharf had initially said the session could extend into Friday. The commission also received more than 35,000 written comments, with the majority opposed to Trump’s proposal, according to the commission.
The lone voice of support at the hearing came from Tara Brown, who said the public should be “thankful and blessed” that Trump decided to build the ballroom. “I think this is great that our president is giving us a gift, this incredible ballroom that is much needed,” Brown said.