Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1913-02-06
Washington Street improvements.

Elsewhere in The Star today. at greater
length than is permissible in this cor
nmn, is set forth an extract from pam
phlet issued by the WASHINGTON Board
Of Trade the subject OF the
finances of the National Capital partner
ship which has a direct bearing upon the
vitality important action taken by the
House IN its treatment of the District
appropriation bill BY its adoption oil
the Borland amendment to the bill. in
effect reducing from one-half To one
quarter the share of federal participation
r. the cost of Washington street improve
ments. tine House lays an unjust and I'M
boarabIe burden upon the shoulders of
Washing tonianS. This however. is in
logical extension of the distinctly unfair
treatment Of the District in the matter
Of street extensions beyond the orlgina!
CITY limits adopted some years ago, when.
in direct violation of all equities. Con-
cress cut out the United States from par
ticiTation in the cost of carrying the
streets of the capital beyond the original
plan. When this was proposed the DIS
trict contended that if the original plan
was To he extended substantially over the
suburbs the government should particl-
Pate as in the restricted city bounded
by Florida avenue. but if the government
did not thus participate and if the streets
We've TO he extended wholly at local eX-
penSe they should he developed along
lines pleasing to those required to pay
for the cost and not on the broad. ex-
pensive. national lines of the original
plan The unjust position was finally
taken, however, that the street extension
should he 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 i'm
proVement of the suburban streets was
left on the basis of equal payments by
the United States. Now the House pro-
poses that the government shall with
draw still further from it's first bargain
with the owners of the land from which
the capital was carved and declares that
not only shall the cost of extension be
borne by the local taxpayers. but that
the improvements shall be paid for by
them with only one-quarter 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
rake, for example. the case of a man
living on street not finally improved.
lie 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 taxpayers living on i'm
proved streets, cut down by 80 per
cent and his own burden increased
The same reasoning that applied TO DEM
onstrate the inequity of the withdrawal
by Congress from equal participation in
the cost of street extensions applies to
this partial withdrawal of federal sup
port for all future street improvements,
whether urban or suburban. A bargain
has been repudiated. Dwellers on I'M
improved streets in the original city suf-
fer an injurious discrimination. Sub
urban Washington is to be set apart in
point OF financial treatment as though il
were not portion of the national cap
1tal, although no eye can distinguish
from physical appearances between that
section which is by congressional dictum
still recognized through equal federal
payments as the National Capital and
that which, in point of fiscal treatment
IN the matter of street extensions and i'm
provements, is rated as negligible
AinterIand