Evening star., 1929-01-01
Equitable Financing.

There are several reasons why the
United States should contribute in
larger percentage to the national prof.
ect of park development in the National
Capital than for the maintenance of
municipal functions that is provided
by the District appropriations bill.
The pending park project is national
not local, in its grand scope and
its great expense. No self-supporting,
self-governing community would under
take it, if, as In Washington's case,
municipal revenues were limited and
unmet municipal needs had accumu-
lated to the amount of millions in re-
spect to the operation of vital munich
pal functions, like the public schools,
with supplementary branch public
libraries, the housing of the District
government soon to be elected by the
National Government from its present
home, the necessary extension, repair
and improvement of neglected city
streets, ETC., etc.
If a local community so situated and
under such conditions were about to
borrow money to increase the municipal
revsnues it would naturally devote the
tials, like schools, smooth streets. sew
ers, ETC., before large expenditures were
made in the purchase and development
of new parks.
To commend park purchase as the
first need to be met from the proceeds
of loan, the municipal taxpayer should
be tempted by the offer of some sub-
Stantial contribution BY others than
himself toward the project. which he
would not otherwise place first upon his
list. To give this thought specific ap-
plication to Washington, it is suggested
that the Nation should contribute to-
ward the primarily national project of
park development at the Capital on
grand scale certain percentage of this
cost as Nation in addition to its small
percentage of contribution as an equita-
BILE source of District municipal revenue.
In dealing with Maryland and Vir-
ginia the Nation offers to contribute
one-third to one-half Of the total cost.
BY analogy it should offer to the Dis
trict, in financing as Nation this pri-
marily national project, one-third to
one-haf of the total cost, and con-
tribute in addition its small lump-sum
payment, as a quasi-municipal taxpayer,
TO the percentage of total cost paid from
District revenues.
The United States would thus con-
tribute on both sides of the account as
Nation and as national-municipal con-
tributor toward National Capital rev.
enues. 1t is to be remembered that the
Capital community pays also on both
sides of the account. 1t pays annually
not only about 10000, 900 in municipal
taxes and other local charges, but in
the fiscal year 1928, it paid over
$17,000,000 in national taxes, more than
any one of Is States, and about as
much as ten of the States combined,
with per capita of national tax pay
ment by the Washingtonian greater
than that of the citizens of 43 of the
States. Deprived of representation in
Congress, it has not word to say ef-
fectively concerning how much shall be
exacted from it in national or local
taxes or for what purposes its tax
money shall be spent.
Another reason why the United
States should make an especially lib
eral percentage of contribution toward
this primarily national project and
finance it separately from the municipal
budget of the District appropriations
bill, with its limitation of national-lump
sum payment, is found in the fact that
a double burden is imposed upon the
local taxpayer when his money is used
to buy land for new parks. Every such
purchase takes land from the tax list
and renders it exempt from taxation.
Thus, the local taxpayer is required to
spend upon a primarily national project
millions Of tax money sorely needed for
municipal purposes, and in SO doing is
compelled to reduce by corresponding
millions his tax-raising capacity and to
remove forever from taxation the park
land which he is forced to purchase.
Taking one consideration with an
other" the United States would fairly
pay at least one-half the cost of financ-
ing this primarily national project.
--S-sAS--