Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1898-03-30

annually cost nearly double the amount OF
streets OF the same length of moderate
dimensions. The government which ere
ated this condition of things ought not to
be very deaf to the complaints of those
upon whom such burden has fallen
Extension of the Street Plan.
| magnificent street plan, the grandest in
the world. over the District outside OF
Washington, and section 10 of the high
way act provides a method of extension
| more unjustly oppressive to the inhabi-
tants Of the feGeral District than the ar
fangement Of which the original property
owners complained. The latter were re-
CURED to give land for the streets; SO are
the former now compelled in effect to
give SUCH land. assessing their neiEhbors
for half the damage and being by their
neighDors for the same purpose them
selves assessed. and making up the remain
der with local tax money, part of which
they contribute, in the payment of which
the government Is exempted from contri-
bLtion. The original donors were recon-
Iensed in part for their gifts by the I'M
Outstanding, afterward violated that the
donated streets should be opened and i'm
proved exclusively or largely at the ex-
pense of the nation In the present ex-
tension OF this plan to the county, on the
other hand, the nation Is explicitly exempt
ed by the fifteenth. section of the high
way act from participating in any way in
the opening and improving of the donated
streets. Had old Washington realized that
the nation would disregard it's implied
agreement anC throw the expense of street
development almost entirely upon individ-
ual citizens it would never have consented
to dedicate for Street purposes more than
half Of the total area of the city, and the
new Washington beyond Boundary street
may well shrink back when invited to de-
velop the extravagant and expensive but
magnificent street plan Of q great national
capital with the feeble unaided resources
of scattered suburban population, which
in its natural development, would never
dream of defeating to the public and of
maintaining and improving at it's own ex-
pense a street area that would take out
OF the market and render not only unpro-
ductive, but source of direct and heavy
outlay. approximately one-half Of the en-
tire suburban city.
The large owners of unsubdivided land
In the District outside of Florida avenue,
will doubtless readily donate to the public
the necessary streets, just as their prede-
cessors did at the founding of the city.
They will not even exact the understanding
had with the original proprietors that the
cost of improving these streets shall fall
exclusively or largely On the nation. They
will be content If, being annexed to Wash
ington, the donated thoroughfares are
! ington streets and are developed under the
act of 1873 on the half-and-half basis.
But the owners of lots in the belt of misit
subdivisions intervening between the origi-
nal city and the unsubdivided land and the
owners of small plots in such unsubdi-
videG land, whose property is either all
taken in streets or so mutilated as to be
rendered practically valueless. occupy a
different position. Why should they give
to the public, they ask, that for which
they have paid cash with TO resulting
benefits even indirect, to themselves from
the transaction? Clearly they must be
compensated for their land taken for pub
lie uses. and just as clearly If the land is
to be thrown Into Washington's grand plan
of streets and made part of the capital
the financial treatment applied by law to
the old must also be applied to the new
streets of the nations city.
Unjust to Taxpayers.
The system of street planning, opening,
maintenance and improvement proposed by
the highway act is unjust to all individual
local taxpayers, whether living inside or
beyond Boundary street. Under the or
ganic act and the present system and prac-
tice such improvements, whether in the
suburbs or in original Washington, are
paid for from the taxes of all Washing
ten without regard to the location of the
taxpayer, and the nation, large property
owner on both sides of Boundary street,
contributes it's proportion toward all. 1t Is
row proposed to exempt Uncle Sam from
contributing outside Boundary street. The
injustice 10 the WhUSS pup
erty is, in many cases. virtually confis-
Gated under this arrangement, has al
ready been indicated. But the owner of
property inside the city has also a griev-
arce. Why should he pay for the improve
ment of streets in the suburbs when Uncle
Sam, who owns over 5000 acres of these
suburbs, has exempted himself from such
payment? If he is equitably bound to pay
for suburban improvements inasmuch as
the suburban taxpayer has long contrib
uted toward urban improvements, does not
the same equity apply to Uncle Sam, who
owns one-haf of the taxable values of
Washington? Is it not ridiculous that the
only urban taxpayer to be exempted from
suburban contribution is Uncle Sam. who,
with his thousands of acres beyond Bound
! airy street. is by far the largest single SUBJ
urban property owner?
The taxpayers of the District are abso-
lutely unable unaided to develop the out
lying territory on the lines of the original
| capital as proposed by the highway act.
Suburban Washington contains 81, 025
acres, as against Gill acres in the original
city and $500 acres in Washington and
Georgetown. At a minimum estimate there
will be much over 10000 acres of streets to
be condemned opened. maintained and i'm
proved, as against 1905 acres in the origi-
nal city, under whose burden the taxpayers
of the capital for three-fourths of a CEN
fury groaned. The new city will be five
times the area Of the original city. The
area of streets to be donated, maintained
and improved will be twice as large as the
entire area of the original city,, and the
imaginary street representing this area
would extend to Chicago instead of New
York. The proposition carried to it's logi-
cal termination means bankruptcy for the
local taxpayers. The municipal expenses,
even with extremely moderate suburban
| improvements on cramped street plan
and with the nation contributing its share
| of the entire cost have sufRced to keep the
| taxes up to a high point compared with
| other municipalities. If the suburbs were
| to be developed on the original city's mag
| nifcent lines and entirely at the local tax
| payers expense. the result Of higher and
| higher taxes and finally. financial disaster
| would clearly be inevitable. This mon
| strous proposition of the highway act is In.
| telligible only on the mistaken idea that
| Washington taxpayers are in some way
| uEduly favored. and that they can without
| injustice be punished with what would 9th.
| erwise be grossly unreasonable and burden
| some exactions. Congress, with full power
| on the subject in it's hands, already re-
| quires from the local taxpayers an euuit-
| able contribution to the capitals expenses
| and no steps should be irrevocabIy taken
| which will increase largely such taxation.
| The nation, by virtue of its real estate
| ownership, which steadily increases. re-
| moves constantly charging fraction of
the city's area from contributing to the
| tax fund.