Evening star., 1927-02-17
Shipstead Bill Topic.
Erroneous Impression of Meas
ure Alleged by H. W. Peaslee.
To the Editor of The Star:

columns tends to create an erroneous
impression regarding the shipstead
bill. and I ask your permission TO
make answer through your columns.
|. 1t is made to appear that this
bill is aimed specifically at Lafayette
Park This is not correct. The bill
originated with Senator Shipstead, as
specifically and repeatedly stated by
him In committee, without any CORE
lation to or regard for the effort to
avert the commercial development of
Lafayette Park. The only reason the
architects committee appeared at the
hearing was because it was announced
IN the press that questions concerning
Lafayette Square would be considered
in connection with the bill
2. 1t was made to appear in com
mittee that if enacted the building
heights would be limited to 40 feet.
The absurdity of this is pointed out.
The text of the bill is that no build
ing below 40 feet would be involved,
and the height Of the Chamber of
commerce was cited as a type already
lapproved by the Commission of Fine
! Arts. Furthermore, a height Of IS
feet was definitely agreed to in the
hearing and certainly accepted by the
group. which included the writer of
the published letter.
g. The statement Is made that "it
is the very fact that such 1. building
as the Veterans Bureau has been con-
structed with the permission OF the
Fine Arts Commission" This betrays
a remarkable ignorance of the facts,
for the building was erected only over
the repeated protests of the commits
sion. 1t has been repeatedly cited as
an example of what should not be
done, and the possibilities Of its
eventual remodeling have been con
sidered. Ever since it's establishment
the Fine Arts Commission has con-
sistently stood for the enhancement
Of Lafayette Square with public build.
ings. as outlined in the plan Of 1901.
| which is conceded by planners
throughout the world as the logical
development Of the great L'Enfant
plan, and for this support the Fine
Arts Commission has borne the brunt
of abuse from various personally in
terested groups for the same period.
4. 1t is made to appear that the
Architects National Committee is
seeking retroactive legislation. This
, is absolutely erroneous. In the archi-
| tects' circular to which reference is
made it is definitely stated: Retro
active legislation is confiscation. The
only equitable solution apparent Is ac-
QUESTION of the properties" Further
more. the chairman of the architects
committee definitely opposed at the
Senate hearing any form of retroacr
tive legislation.
5. The gist of the question con-
Germs not the Fine Arts Commission
but the Planning Commission. All
| national planning groupS-architects,
engineers, landscape architects, city
planners, men qualified to pass judg-
ment in such matters-have contrib
uted to the accomplishment of legisla-
tion for a planning commission to do
the planning for the National Capital.
The ableSt men in the country have
been drafted by the President from
different professions. At the very out
set of the planning these eminent
planners find their hands tied as the
result of a filbuster which held up the
public buildings bill in the Senate un-
| til all buildings were forced south OF
| Pennsylvania avenue and into the tr1-
angle. The pretext was that here was
where L'Enfant wanted them; that the
plan of 1901 for a Lafayette Square
| grouping was the work of an upStart
commission opposed to L'Enfant.
| Parenthetically. it should be under
stood that the commission heartily ap
proved the projected triangle" devel-
| opment. feeling only that the Lafa-
yette Park project should not be aban-
| doned.
The facts can easily be verified. The
original L'Enfant plans of 1890 and
1891 never even suggested the use of
the triangle for public buildings. and
as setting for the presidents House"
| restricted the area from Fifteenth to
| Seventeenth street for a president s
park 1t was the much-maligned
plan of 1901 which. taking cogniZance
of both the encroachment on the
White House and the future building
needs of the Government. proposed
the use of both areas for public struc-
lures. Already practically the whole
| triangle is scheduled for needed struc-
lures. with still no sites provided for
the permanent buildings of State.
! War. Navy, the Budget and other
agencies of the Government.
| All that the architects committee
asks is:
| l. That Congress lift the ban
against Lafayette Square, imposed by
one man, against even consideration
by the Planning and Public Buildings
| Commissions.
1
taken over by the Government be pur
chased before millions of dollars in
improvements are piled upon it.
| These are both reasonable require
| ments. both in the interests of the
| Nation as a whole and in the interests
! Of the taxpayers as individuals, who
| cannot fail to take notice OF repeated
efforts to inculcate in the public mind
| the absurd figure of 50,000,000 as the
l 80 fnl he
ment will need. AS a matter of fact,
| the assessed valuation OF the entire
| block in contention--the west side of
| the squares $2,961.221. of which
| $649,625 is already Government prop
erty, leaving $2,311 .596 in private own
ership. Furthermore. the total as
sessed valuation of all other privately
| owned properties fronting on the
| square. including the northwest and
northeast corners. possession or which
| would secure for the Nation the digni-
| fed setting desired. amounts to but
| So ,594,37O. The total of these figures
| is 4.905, 1855. There Is some explain
| ing to be done by real estate operators
who complain of excess taxation while
| trying to create a selling price 10
times greater than the assessed valua
| tion of their holdings.
Nothing that has been proposed will
do injury to the individual property
holders, except to deprive them Of
potential speculative values by ex
| plotting the Governments needs. The
injury is being done to the mass of
the taxpayers by Withholding property
from even consideration for purchase
until it's price can be boosted by i'm
provements which will have to be torn
down and discarded.
This is no effort of a few young
gentlemen educated in art at the
, Beaux Arts and the Sorbonne in
Paris" but A. nation.Wi movement