Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-05-15


prompted the Senate appropriations
committee to recommend and the SEN
ate to approve an increase of $4,000. 900
in the lump sum was Uncle Sans huge
building activity in Washington, which,
while removing taxable land to the ex-
empt list, increases his improvements
in the Capital and therefore adds i'm
mensely to his real estate holdings.
From time to time the contention has
been made that the United States
should contribute to the maintenance
liability as a municipal taxpayer.
Using the figures compiled by the Bu-
reau of Efficiency last year when IT
made. at the request Of the House, a
comparative analysis of the local tax
burden and without reaching conclu-
sions discussed the Federal liability as
a taxpayer, those who make this con-
tention hold that instead of the $9,000,-
900 lump sum contribution, the Federal
Government should merely pay sum
computed at $7,440, 000-this being a
theoretical tax levy on an estimated as
sessment Of Federal real and personal
property in the District amounting to
$501 ,493,975.
Increase in Value.
Thus it. is Immediately apparent that
If the United States is to be assessed
on this basis, the assessment should be
increased because of the building pro-
gram. Chairman Elliott of the House
committee on public buildings and
grounds, has estimated that the public
buildings act of 1925 has been amended
until Congress now has authorized for
buildings in the District OF Columbia
the sum of 1927 $4,000" These author
izations would tend to increase by more
than SO per cent the Federal Govern
ment's holdings in real estate and i'm
provements. In like manner the theo-
retical tax levy would be increased.
Aside from the fair tax to be as
sessed against the Federal Government,
on the basis of its property holding in
the District, there are in addition to be
considered, Cd loss of tax revenue to
the municipality on. account OF excess
above ordinary real property exemptions:
CO cost of excess park acquisition and
maintenance; go cost of improving.
maintaining and policing an extraordi-
nary excess of street area; "a the
equitable obligation to pay literally and
to assume primary financial RESPONSE
bility for the District, based on the
absolute and exclusive control Of the
Districts fiscal affairs by Congress, on
the principle that fiscal obligation fol-
lows power; and 60 the fiscal obliga-
ton OF the Nation to the Capital that
springs from the circumstances OF the
creation and upbuilding Of the Nations
city.
When all of these items have been
thoroughly studied and converted into
dollars and cents very large increase,
amounting to millions, in the national
contribution for Capital upbuilding Will
be disclosed as equitable. whether that
lust contribution takes the shape OF a
lump sum or of definite proportionate
contribution in obedience to substantive
law.
Bureau OF Efficiency Figures.
The formula of the Bureau of Eff
cheney for measuring Uncle Sans fiscal
obligation to the Capital applies also to
the corresponding obligation OF the To-
cal taxpayers, and the Bureau consist
emily supplies the figures which enable
us to ascertain whether with Uncle Sam
as an ordinary municipal taxpayer the
local taxpayers are contributing 700
much or too little for Capital upbuild-
ing in comparison with the actual tax
burdens Of comparable American cities.
The Bureau in treating Uncle Sam
as a municipal taxpayer appra1ses MS
-
the District at s5oi ,493,975 with tax
levy of $7,440,9 $500, and adds this
amount to the assessment of District
realty and personality already taxable.
Upon the basis of this total assessment
per capitas for comparison with those
Of other cities are calculated.
These comparisons disclose exceed
ingly interesting results. For example,
the Bureau figures the per capita gen
eral property tax levies in 1928 In IA
American cities, between 100000 and
100000 population, and compares
them with Washington's per capita
with Uncle Sam participating as tax
payer. These figures show that Wash
ington's per capita, thus calculated.
exceeds those of seven of the fourteen
cities-namely. Cleveland, st. Louis.
Baltimore, Milwaukee. Minneapolis, New
Orleans and Indianapolis-and is ex-
ceeded by those of Boston, Pittsburgh,
Buffalo. Newark, Cincinnati, Rochester
and Jersey City.
The significant comparisons so far
as current maintenance is concerned
do not include a comparison OF interest
payments on city indebtedness, which
the proceeds of. loans, of which the
BENEFITS have been enjoyed. Washing
ton, which has enjoyed the benefit Of
no loans, should not be required in
order to put itself on taxpaying
equality with other cities to tax itself
in the amounts represented by these
interest payments and they should be
deducted from the property tax levies
of all the cities in comparison with
Washington Of the cost of current
maintenance