Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1914-05-13
THE B0RLAND
AMENDMENT
Inequity of Putting Cost of
Street improvements on
Property Owners.
EXTRAORDINARY STREET
PLAN OF WASHINGTON
All Expense Of Extensions First Put
on District and Now hree-Fourths
of Improvement Cost.
December 20. 1873.

The reduction of the national contribu-
ton toward street improvement at the
capital from 20 per cent to - per cent.
and in some cases the imposition of the
total cost upon owners of adjacent prop
erty. III effect accomplished by the pro-
posed Eorand amendment to the District
appropriate ton bill. brings into the lime
light the extraordinary nature of Wash
ington's street plan and the peculiar obi
cations imposed upon the nation in re-
spect to its development Improvement
and maintenance.
Washington.s street extension plans as
sanctioned by Congress propose sub
stantially the reproduction in the county
of the street plan of the original city
The avenues seeking extension propose
to suffer no material contraction. and if
all are carried through the belt of sub
urban subdivisions and connected with
the street plan provided by the amended
highway act the scheme of streets of the
new Washington, while occupying a
somewhat smaller percentage of area in
tho-oughfares. VIII be on the same broad
scale as that of the original city
But the Plaza of Washington. as con
d
tional, not local scale. the broad streets,
avenues and alleys occupying more than
one-half the entire area The scheme
would have been absurd for a self-sup-
porting, seIf-deve,oping Maryland village
Of that day. Its extension at this time
to adjacent territory is equally absurd
as we'll rs grossly unjust and unbearably
oppressive unless the nation stands in the
tn, tll.. snl he.
original city.
This Borland amendment proposition is
in logical extension of the distinctly I'M
fair treatment of the District in the mat
ter of street extensions beyond the orig
inal city limits adopted some years ago.
when. in direct violation of all equities.
Congress cut ont the United States from
participation in the cost of carrying the
streets of the capital beyond the original
plan. When this was proposed the Dis
tTict contended that if the original plan
was to be extended substantially over the
suburbs the government should partlci-
pate as in the restricted city bounded by
Florida avenue. but if the government
did not thus participate and if the streets
were to be extended wholly at local eN-
pepse they should be developed along
lines pleasing TO those required to pay
for the cost. and not OH the broad. ex-
pensive. 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 Capt.
tai 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 that the United
States should be exempt from partici-
patng i'll the cost of extensions. But the
improvement OF the suburban streets
was left on the basis of equal payments
by the United States. Now il is proposed
that the government shall withdraw still
further from its first bargain with the
owners of the land from which the capital
was carved. and that MOI only shall the
cost of extension be borne by the local
taxpayers. but that the improvements
shall be paid for by them with at most
only one-quarter participation by the
United States.
The ineuuity of this proposition is ap-
parent upon reasonable consideration
of the matter. 1t is full of varied in
justices. Take. for example. the case OF
a man living on a street not finally i'm
proved. He las, perhaps. been paying
taxes for years. thus contributing his
share of other street Improvements on
the half-and-half basis, anu now that
his own street is to be improved he finds
the government participation and that
of his fellow taxpayers living on improved
streets cut down by 80 per cent and his
own burden increased. or il the street
is less than forty feet wide he and his
ncighbor across the way must bear the
whole cost The same reasoning that
applied to demonstrate the ineuGitv OF
the withdra wal by Congress from equal
participation in the cost of street extern
SONS applies to This partial withdra " al
of federal support for all future street
improvements. whether urban or sub
DIV elier:; on unimpr"" 80 streets in III"