Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1913-12-22
Washington Street Improvements.

Elsewhere in The Star today, at greater
length than is permissible in this column,
Is set forth an extract from pamphlet
issued by the Washington Board of Trade
on the subject of the finances of the
National Capital partnership which has
a direct bearing upon the motion to add
the Borland street paving amendment to
the District appropriation bill. This pro-
posed amendment i'll effect reduces from
one-half to one-quarter the share of fed
eral participation in the cost of WASH
ington street improvements, and III some
cases puts the entire cost upon owners
of adjacent property, and thus lays an
unjust and unbearable burden upon the
shoulders of Washingtonians. This, how
ever, is in logical extension of the dis
tinctly unfair treatm of the District
in the matter of street extensions beyond
the original city limits adopted some
years ago. when, i'm direct violation of all
equities, Congress cut out the United
States from participation in the cost of
carrying the streets of the capital beyond
the original plan. When this was pro-
posed the District contended that if the
original plan was to be extended substan-
TALLY over the suburbs the government
SHoulu participate DIS III the IcSlficteu
city bounded by Florida avenue, but if
the government did not thus participate
and if the streets were to be extended
wholly at local expense they should be
developed along lines pleasing to those
required TO pay for the cost, and not on
the broad, expensive. national lines of
the original plan. The unjust position
was finally taken, however. that the
street extension should be on the broad
scale of the Capital city, established by
the United States for its own use and
designed as a great seat of government
of unique plan and comprehensive scale.
But the improvement of the suburban
streets was left on the basis of equal
payments by the United States. Now the
it is proposed that the government shall
withdraw still further from its first bar
gain with the owners of the land from
which the capital was carved, and
that not only shall the cost of ex-
tension be borne by the local taxpayers
but that the improvements shall be paid
for by them with at most only one-quar-
ter participation by the United States.
The inequity of this proposition is ap-
parent upon reasonable consideration of
the matter 1t is full of varied injustices.
Take, for example, the case of a man
living on a street not finally improved.
He has, perhaps. been paying taxes for
years, thus contributing his share of other
street improvements on the half-and-half
basis. and now that his own street is to
be improved he finds the governments
participation and that of his fellow tax
payers living on improved streets cut
down BY 10 per cent and his own burden
Increased if the street is less than
forty feet wide he and his neighbor across
the way must bear the whole cost The
same reasoning that applied to demon
strate the inequity of the withdrawal by
Congress from equal participation in tile
cost of street extensions applies to this
partial withdrawal of federal support for
all future street improvements, whether
urban or suburban. A bargain has
been repudiated. Dwellers on un-
improved streets in the original city
suffer Injurious discrimination. Sub
urban Washington is to be set apart in
point of financial treatment as though it
were not a portion of the National Cap
ital, although no eye can distinguish from
physical appearances between that section
which is by congressional dictum still
recognized through equal federal pay
ments as the National Capital and that
which, in point of fiscal treatment in the
matter of street extensions and improve
ments, is rated as negligible hinterand