Washington City Paper reporter Lydia DePillis characterized it in 2011 as "crusty" for its vehement opposition to change[11] and its members as "civic worthies" for representing only wealthy, white residents.

On December 8, 1886, a group of businessmen residing in Washington's Northwest quadrant convened a meeting to appoint a "Committee of 100 Representative Citizens" to promote development of the city (then largely undeveloped woodlands).

[16] Delano stepped down as chairman at the end of 1944, and Owen Roberts, Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States, was appointed his successor.

[17] The Committee of 100 on the Federal City has been involved in numerous campaigns (pro and con) regarding buildings, roads, memorials, parks, and other architectural and planning features of Washington, D.C.

When the District of Columbia achieved home rule on January 1, 1975, the city established Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANCs) to empower local citizens on a wide variety of zoning, planning, and other issues.

They are currently under the care of GWU's Special Collections Research Center, located in the university's Estelle and Melvin Gelman Library.

The Washington Post reported that streetcar supporters blamed Sarah Campbell, a member of the Committee of 100 and the budget director for the city council, for the decision.

Campbell vehemently denied the accusation, saying she did not oppose overhead wires but was concerned that the city had not come up with an adequate funding method for the project yet.

[39] A month later, the city council passed legislation allowing overhead wires along Benning Road and H Street NE, but banning them from the area around the National Mall and Pennsylvania Avenue NW.

[5][42] Lydia DePillis, writing for the Washington City Paper, said the group's demand was because it believed Kleing had disregarded their input and pursued a smart growth agenda which the Committee of 100 disapproved of.

Committee members in 2010 largely rejected a historian's study that concluded fire safety limitations (such as the height of ladders) was the reason for enactment of the law.

When the United States House of Representatives held hearings on the height limit's effect on redevelopment in the District of Columbia, Laura Richards testified for the Committee of 100 against any changed.

"[48] Richards implied that city residents overwhelmingly supported retaining the height limitation as is, and that the legislation made "the frantic life of our modern world...more bearable.

"[47] In November 2012, the National Capitol Planning Commission said it would study the effect which the building height limitations had on redevelopment in Washington, D.C. Committee of 100 chairman George Clark categorically ruled out any change as acceptable.

[50] Others, such as University of Maryland professor of architecture Roger K. Lewis, argue that the height limits constrain redevelopment and could be relaxed in areas such as the Anacostia River waterfront and around outlying Metro stations without harming the city's character.

Christopher Leinberger, a real estate developer and visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution argued, "This is purely a supply-demand question, and we need more supply.

[10] In 2012, the Committee of 100 on the Federal City expressed its concern over plans to cover over the railway tracks north of Union Station and construct a number of mixed use residential, office, retail, and hotel buildings there.

The coalition immediately issued an eight-point plan aimed at preserving the train station in its current form, ensuring that the public had frequent and significant input into the project, and restoring pedestrian areas.

[54] In 2015, the Committee unsuccessfully sought to block CSX Transportation's reconstruction of the Virginia Avenue Tunnel in Southeast Washington.

[57] Richard Layman, a D.C. transportation planner, accused Alpert and other New Urbanism advocates in 2013 of not appreciating all the positive things the Committee on 100 had accomplished.

[6] In its newsletter, the committee attacked GGW as wanting "to recreate Washington, DC as a highdensity destination for the healthy, wealthy and young" and demanding "multi-family mixed-use development on every available scrap of land without regard to need, scale, balance, or the opinions of impacted District residents.

To live in this 'smart' vision of the District, you should be willing to forego elbow room and to accept that a neighbor who enlarges his house may be literally an arms length away.

The Washington Post reported that most of the Committee of 100's membership lived in the wealthy Upper Northwest residential area, where people rely primarily on personal automobiles (rather than mass transit) and curbside parking is readily available.