Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1928-02-05
DISTRICT NOT ALONE In CITIES
SHOWING YEARLY BUDGET GAIN
BY BEN McKELWAY.

Senator King of Utah, who Is a
valuable member Of the District COM
mittee because he takes nothing for
granted, is inclined to believe that the
District is going mad" in its yearly
expenditures and he views with alarm
the current budget of 10000, 900 which.
he correctly points out, Is greater than
the budgets of many States, including
Kansas and Iowa. He might also have
included the statement that costs for
governmental operation maintenance
and improvements In the District OF
Columbia are exceeded by costs for
these items only in the States of
Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Ohio. Indiana. Illinois.
Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota. Iowa,
Missouri North Carolina, Texas and
California. In the remaining %
States. the budgets are less than the
budgets for the District Of Columbia
provided there have been no radical
changes since 1926. the last year for
which statistics are available at the
Census Bureau.
But as for the Senator's statement
that the District is going mad" spend
ing money he will find many who
agree with him. 1t Is a condition that
is not confined to the District of Co
lumbia alone, however. The $50 cities
of the United States with populations
in excess Of 10000 spent nearly twice
as much in the fiscal year 1926 as the
10 States combined, and there is moth
ing to indicate that the same proper
ton will not prevail in 1927 and 1928
The high cost of running cities is
alarming not only to Senator King,
but to many other students who are
devoting time and much thought in
trying to find out what to do about it.
1t is not the fact that cities are spend
ing so much more than the States that
causes worry The comparison with
the States might be left out altogether
For 1t could be substituted the COMPARE
son between expenditures of the Federal
cities. In 1926 the cost Of operating
maintaining and improving the Federal
Government. together with payment Of
interest on debts. exceeded the cost for
these items in cities Of more than
10000 population by only 1914 per cent.
But even this comparison is less IN
teresting than the figures which show
the constantly mounting cost of oper-
ating cities. In 1917. for instance. the
per capita net governmental cost pay
ments for operation. maintenance and
interest for i46 cities was S24.5S. In
| 1926 this figure had risen 10 30-an
increase Of more than 100 per cent in
less than 10 years
Several explanations are available
One fact to be taken into considera-
/ ton is that many cities have been
making up In permanent OUTLAWS for
, their neglect during the war. They
! have been building schools, for in
| stance. at a great rate Their highways
cost more and there are more of them.
! They are constantly charging the
/ functions Of government But one OF
the most interesting factors has been
the effect Of increased population on
| the cost OF running cities. 1t is easy
| to understand that 1t viii cost more TO
maintain. operate and improve q city
OF l00. 900 than 1t viii for q city Of
$4,000. But along with this general
| increase Is the increasing per capita
cost, which rises as the population
grows. In 1917 the per capita cost of
operation in cities Of more than SOC. 200
population Was $34 TO. In 1926 IL was
$40 q. But in 1877 the per capita cost
OF operation in cities Of less than
so 600 was Sl776. q figure which In
1926 had risen 10 $50 So.
Is is interesting 70 compare the
growth Of the Districts population since
1872 with the growth Of the expendi-
lures. The census figures are from The