The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1909-10-31

trict government has h right TO demand
nominal license fee. in order that IL
may be assured thai things are being
done as they should be. but when fees
are collected for the purpose OF feeding
the public treasury such fees are addi-
tiOnal taxes and are absolutely wrong
Jesse J.. Heiskeu. OF the real estate
firm Of Heiskeu a McLeran. asserted
mat not only were the building permits
too large. but that half OF the existing
force in the building department should
be discharged. and the remainder put 10
work
Clerks Are Not Busy.
II could say the same OF the whole
municipal force employed I'm the District
Building" Mr. Heiskeu said. "The ma
jority Of the clerks sit around with their
feet tilted on polished desks, calmly
smoking while the citizens in the mean
time pay taxes TO support them. They
do not know what real work IS. The
building department claims il needs $40. 20
000 this year 10 run the office II they
dismiss half the force and make the re-
mainder hustle they can run it easily or
$4,000 The way money has been and is
being literally dumped into the depart
mentS with no propOrtiOuate return is
shameful Again, why should a man have
TO pay a large price for a permit 10 i'm
prove his property or build a new build
ing? He benefits the community by such
building or Improvement. and IL should
cost him a minimum price for a permit
Rather fine the man who does not i'm
prove his property"
Another prominent real estate man said
IL was as reasonable to expect the build
ing department. a public servant. to be
self-supporting as 10 would be TO have
the police or fire departments self-sup-
porting, and charge fees for making ar
rests and running to fires
Builders and contractors are also rate
on account of the permit fees
James l.. Parsons, prominent contractor,
said that il was his opinion that the
building department could be run prop
erly on 10000 a year, instead OF $4,000
which, il is claimed, is needed, and that
the extra $4,000 obtained from fees was
an unwaTranted expense upon the man
erecting new building or improving an
old one.
An Enormous increase.
The increase in fees for permits has
been enormous and unnecessary" Mr..
Parsons said, "and IL is extremely oues-
tionable whether it is necessary TO in
crease the building departments eff
cheney to such an extent as the new
regulations will provide. This increased
cost amounts to a considerable tax. A
large majority Of the building owners
building homes and building for invest
ment employ competent builders and
architects and efficient inspectors This
class OF owners would not be benefited to
any conside- able extent by the increased
efficiency c. the inspection OF the build
ing department 1h's enormous Increase
! base upon personal experience under
the new regulations in two instances. I
have paid $50 for o permit % remodel at
Ninth and g streets, which under the
old regulations. wcuIC .N > cost only ST.
For the remodelin- q. lls barn for the
Capital Traction Company. at Eighth and
l. streets southeast paid 1920, for which,
under the old regulations. I would have
paid only 81. For. business buildings and
apartment houses. warehouses, &c, per
NIT fees run from $50 TO $500 and $400
whereas under the old regulations the
fee was only So This Is unquestionably
an enormous increase and unwarranted
hope The Commissioners will correct
this deplorable state Of affairs, which
Will tend 20 check better building cOndi-
tons"
one Of the prominent men whose name
appears among the signers II the petit
ton advocates a test case in the courts