Evening star., 1928-11-11
125 Per Cent Limit Often
Leads to Jury Action and
Excessive Prices.
STATUTES APPLICATION
RAISES DOUBT AS TO GOOD
Wide Discussion Among Citizens
Bodies Follows Districts Two
Year Experience With Rule.


chase of school sites wcs decided upon
to saUe the District taxpayers uorey.
Has it fulfilled its purpose? The foilow-
ing article contains interesting intoTmG-
ttcr of hon the tdw works in practice
When, under law designed to pro-
tect 1t against exorbitant prices, the
Government pSEI more for piece of
property thar che owner demands, con-
siderable doubt as to the merits of that
law rises in the minds of persons con-
versant with it, even though definite
instances of this particular sort of
transaction are comparatively few.
Again, when a sum totaling 100000
cannot be spent for sadly needed school
sites because of that laws provisions,
despite the fact that Congress appro-
priated the money for that specific pur-
pose, the certainty of the legislations
value is further challenged.
On the other hand, when proven at
tempts of land owners to charge the
Government extremely high prices for
their properties are considered, the ne
cessity for some restrictive measure is
apparent and conservative residents and
taxpayers of the District of Columbia
the ultimate beneficiaries or sufferers
under any expenditure of public funds
become thoughtful.
Provisions of Law.
The law in question Is the 125 per
cent restriction which Congress has
seen fit to place on District Of Colum-
bia school site appropriations and which
specifies that the District shall not pay
more than IS per cent above the as
sessed value for the lands it purchases
''for school purposes"
The 125 per cent restriction Is one
of the debatable civic topics. 1t has
been condemned and will continue TO be
condemned by citizens associations and
Parent Teacher associations throughout
the District of Columbia, and discussed
pro and con by District of1cials who
attempt to carry out their duties. 1t
is blamed by some for the admitted
partial failure of the first five-year
school building program although 1t is
credited by others with having saved
the Government from being "held up"
by land owners with whom it has done
business.
Any impartial consideration Of the
act of 1927 which imposed the restric-
ton upon school land appropriations
must take into account the background
which produced the legislation as well
as the processes by which land is pur-
chased for the District schools.
Features of Hearings.
The hearings before the District sub
committee of the House committee on
appropriations on the 1927 estimates
were noteworthy, not only because in
those sessions the 125 per cent reStric-
ton on school sites was forecast, but
because the second f1ve-year building
program, which the Board of Educa-
ton is preparing at the present time,
was propheSied in the testimony OF Dr.
Frank w. Ballou, superintendent OF
schools.
On March 8. 1926, Robert G. Sim
mons, Representative from Nebraska,
then member of the District subcom-
mittee of the House committee on ap-
preparations and now its chairman
called attention to the fact that the
land bought in regular purchase Tor the
site of the new Mckinley High School
the Government 181 per cent of its
assessed value, and that the land OBJ
tanned through condemnations proceed
ings in order to complete the required
parcel was purchased at 302 per cent
of its assessed value. In his examlna-
ton of DR.. Ballou, Representative Sim
mons wanted to know whether or not
the people of washington knew that
those prices were being paid for this
land"
When DR.. Ballou answered that he
had no way of knowing If the c1tizens
were acquainted with the facts con-
cerning the prices of land, Representa-
tive Simmons said:
If this committee should take rather
drastic steps to force situation where
the District can buy its property at
reasonable price, would public opinion
support or condemn us?"
TT will support you absolutely, sir,
DR.. Ballou replied, lin anything tnaC
saves the District money or which ultl-
mately assists in carrying out this (the
first five-year) building program"
Drastic Steps Taken.
The rather drastic steps" which Rep
resentative Simmons mentioned that
March day in 1926 took effect July l OF
the same year in the form OF the 125
per cent restriction, and ever since that
time the Districts organized citizens
and its thinking individuals have been
attempting to determine whether or not
the Government has been able to buy
its school property at "a reasonable
price"
Mai. L. E. Atkins, U. S. A., Assistant
Engineer Commissioner of the District,
who purchases property for the Districts
various uses. believes it mas not, If the
lowest obtainable price constitutes a
reasonable price" -:
The process by which lands are
bought for school purposes IS somewhat
involved and tedious, since Maj. Atkins,
like any other purchasing ofIicial for a
large organization, Is required to bar
gain closely for the properties he buys.
Briefly, the process Is something like
this: A suitable site for a school build
ing is recommended for purchase by the
Board of Education and Mai Atkins
efforts to make the purchase center ON
that particular site. The owner sets a
price, invariably, the records show. far
above 125 per cent of the property's as
seSSed value. A period of bargaining
enSues, in which the District waits out"
for better price. -.
Finally, when it is conceded at the
District Building that the owner has
reached his lowest price and that price
still is above the limit, Mai. Atkins
condemnation proceedings,
which, to be entered into, must be
authorized by the District Commits
sioners. The proceeding establishes a
price which then may be taken to Con-