Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-08-19
Another Victory for Parks.

Inasmuch as a large oil company has
failed in its efforts to secure War De-
partment sanction for its proposed pier
above the Key Bridge, it will probably
farm" on the Virginia shore. The tanks
had been opposed by citizens of Ar
lington County, by the National
Capital Park and Planning Com
mission and by the Virginia Park
and Planning Commission on the
ground that they would have inter-
fered with park development. Notwith-
standing this opposition, the authorities
Of Arlington County had granted the
necessary permits and, in the end, the
fate of the project rested on whether
the War Department would authorize
the pier, from which oil vessels would
be unloaded. From technical stand
point, the Chief of Engineers of the
Army could interpcse no objection. The
pier would not have interfered with
navigation. But with the park de-
velopment plan in mind, the Secretary
of War refused the permit over the
Recommendation of the engineers.
This decision will be generally APP
proved Despite the willingness of the
petitioning oil company to change the
plans and to make the tanks as unob-
iectionable as possible to park develop
ment, the city planners and others
were fearful that their construction
would prove to be an irrevocable step
In the wrong direction, and that park
development of the Virginia shore north
Of Key Bridge would be seriously men
aced. AS III the case of the defeated
abattoir project, the city planners and
park developers have won another VAL
liable victory against great odds. 1t
will encourage them to remain alert
and ready to tight other commercial
projects that endanger the success OF
their own plans.
One interesting point in connection
with the oil case was that the issue,
sharply drawn between ethetic and
commercial development, divided into
two camps the Army engineers who
have separate but interlapping Ju-
risdiction in planning for Washington'S
future. As in the case of the Great
Falls development. Col. U. S. Grant,
Sd, executive officer of the National
Capital Park and Planning Commission,
found himself fighting the United States
engineers for the district, Col. Grant
advocating park development and the
United States district engineer advo-
eating commercial development.
In the oil company case the facts
were argued before the United States
district engineer and he decided in
favor of the company over the OPP
position of Col Grant. The Secretary
of War, however, stepped in to make
the anal decision in favor Of Col. Grant.
In neither case has the personal view
or prediction of the engineers been
important. One has merely represented
an agency created to do one thing
while the others decisions are not
supposed to take into consideration, as
having a practical bearing on the issue
the views of this agency.
In cases where the jurisdiction OF the
duly constituted agency planning Tor
the growth and development of the
Federal City clashes with the jurisdic-
ton of the Army engineer, whose pur-
view is limited to technical aspects Of
the case, the opinion of the National
Capital Park and Planning Commission
should be the final opinion, with the
way left open, of course, for appeal tc
the courts.
AS in many other cases, the fight
against the oil company plans has en-
phasized the fact that the park agencies
cannot forever base their opposition II
commercial development on the extent
of their paper plans alone. II some
of these paper plans are not translated
into deeds Of purchase for land and the
concrete Of roadways, the private own
ers of the affected property cannot b.
expected to be denied indefinitely the
right to sell such property at the high
est price 1t will bring, regardless o.
the use to which it may some da!
be put.
About the only new wrinkle that Ia!
t,an., If te m efaop an en-