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

of 4 great National Capital with the
feeble, unaided resources of a scattered
suburban population, which In its nalural
development would never dream OF dedl-
eating to the public and of maintaining
and improving at it's own expense stree,
area that would take out Of the marker
and render not only unproductive but a
source Of direct and heavy outlay over
one.third of the entire suburban city.
The large owners of unsubdiv1ded iano
in the District outside Of Florida avenue
will doubtless readily donate to the pup
lie the necessary streets, just as tneif
predecessors did at the founding OF tht
city. They will not even exact the uh-
derStanding had with the original pro
prietors-that the cost of improving these
streets shall fall exclusively or largely on
the nation. They will be content II, peins
annexed to Washington, the donated thor
oughfareS are treated In the same way a.
all other Washington streets ana are oe-
veloped under the act of 1878 on the haJf
and-half basis. But the owners OF lots 1T
the belt of misfit subdivisions intervening
between the original city and the unsuo-
divided land and the owners of small piots
i'm such unsubdivided land, whose proper
ty. under extension bills viii be e''her al
taken i'm streets or so mutilated as 10 Dc
rendered practically valueless. occupy
different position. Why shouid .hes Siss
to the public, they ask. that for "hlch
they have paid cash with no resulting
benefits, even indirect. to themselves from
the transac tion? Clearly they must be
compensated for their land taken ior pup
lie uses, and just as clearly II the iahd IS
to be thrown into Washington grand
plan of streets and made a part or the
capital the financial treatment applied by
law to the old must also be applied 10 the
new streets of the nations city.
Unjust to Taxpayers.
The system of street opening and i'm
provement proposed in. the separate ex-
tension bills, like those affecting Rhode
Island avenue, 18th street and 10th street,
was unjust to all individual local tax
PAYERS whether living inside or beyond
Boundary street. Under the organic act
and the proper system and practice such
improvements, whether in the suburbs or
in original Washington. are paid for from
the taxes of all Washington without re-
gard to the location of the taxpayer, and
the nation. a large property owner on
both sides of Boundary street, con-
tributes it's proportion toward all. it was
1S3S-0O then proposed. however. to estab-
liSh a new precedent OF exempting Uncle
Sam from contributing outside Boundary
street. The injustice to the suburbanite is
obvious But the owner of property in
side the city has also a grievance. why
should he pay for the Improvement or
streets In the suburbs when Uncle Sam,
who owns over 5000 acres Of these sub
urbs, has exempted himself from such
payment? If he is equitably bound to
pay for suburban improvements mas
much as the suburban taxpayer has long
contributed toward urban improvems nts,
does not the same equity apply to Uncle
Sam. who owns a large fraction OF the
taxable values of Washington? Is it not
ridiculous that the only urban taxpayer
to be exempted from suburban contribu-
ton Is Uncle Sam. who. with his thou
sands of acres beyond Boundary street,
is by far the largest single suburban
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. Suburban Washington contains
81 ,925 acres. as against 6,111 acres in the
original city and $500 acres in Washing
ton and Georgetown. At a minimum es-
innate there will be much over 10000
acres of streets to be condemned. opened.
maintained and improved, as against
1905 acres In the original city. under
whose burden the taxpayers of the cap
ital for three-fourths of a century groaI-
ed. The new city will be five times the
area of the original city. The area of the
streets to be donated, maintained and i'm
proved will be twice as large as the en-
tire 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 logical
termination means bankruptcy for the 10
cal taxpayers. The municipal expenses.
even with extremely moderate suburban
improvements on a cramped street plan
and with q nation contributing it's share
of the entire cost. have sufficed to keep
the taxes up TO Il high point compared
with other municipalities. II the suburbs
were to be developed on the original
city's magnificent lines. and entirely at
the local taxpayers expense, the result
of higher and higher taxes and finally
financial disaster would clearly be inev-
table. This monstrous proposition is In
telligibie only ON the mistaken idea that
Washington taxpayers are in some way
unduly favored, and that they can with
out injustice be punished with what
would otherwise be grossly unreasona Bile
and burdensome exactions. Congress. with
full power on the subject in its hands,
already requires from the local taxpay-
ers an equitable contribution to the cap
itaIs expenses, and no steps should be
irrevocably taken which will increase
largely such taxation.
Either suburban Washington should be
made part Of the capital in all respects
or the section should be retroceded to
Maryland and permitted to develop on the
natural lines of its own resources as a
series of Maryland villages. The Greater