Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-06-12
NEW ATTACK MADE
BY SIMMONS UPON
LUMP SUM FOES
Continued From First Page.)

! Continued From First Page)
Government property and private prop
| erty remained constant" he said, then
fixed percentage plan would be fair,
| but the private property values have
increased far out of proportion to the
| values of Government property, so that
percentage basis that was fair to the
| United States and the District in 1918
| would be exceedingly unfair to the
United States and decidedly advanta-
geous to the District taxpayer in 1890"
Mr.. Simmons said that a second rea-
son for the adoption of the lump-Sum
plan, as stated by Representative
Cramton of Michigan, who was acting
chairman of the subcommittee when
that plan was adopted, is that it en-
abled the Federal Government to pay
what is considered its obligation to the
Nations Capital and enabled likewise
the District to expand and meet essen
tial municipal development costs from
its own resources.
Summing up his arguments that the
House conferees have not been unfair,
Representative Simmons said:
The House confereeS did not break
off the conference. The House conferees
refused to yield on the issue until the
Senate confereeS furnished facts which
they could bring back to the House to
justify Federal gratuity of more than
$4,000, 900 to the District. That was
our position on May Is; it is our posi-
ton now and will continue to be the
position Of the House conferees on this
bill"
Replying to the four points cited by
the Senate conferees in their statement
read to the Senate. Representative
Simmons said regarding the first point
the claim that If 100000 was fair
and just in 1925 when the total of the
bill was S31 900 900 then it cannot be
fair and just when the total of the bill
in 1881 is $45, 500 ,000-that the error in
the contention of the Senate conferees
is that they assume the relationship be-
tween the Federal property values and
activities and District property values
and activities remain constant, but such
Is not the fact, he insisted.
Assessments Increased.
1.-THE real and tangible personal prop
erty assessment" he argded, had in
creased from $326,5l2,417 in 1910 to
$919, 603, 1877 in 1925 and again in 1880
had increased to 1929, 669, 1865. In
tangibles increased from 1926, 926, 900 in
| 1918 to $410106, 1856 in 1925 and $543,-
| 188 143 in 1880. Miscellaneous revenues
| of 81 ,036, GAL in, 1910 increased to 81
412,861 in 1925 and $3,5OO,O00 in 1880,
| so that while the total of the bill has
| increased it has only kept pace with
the increased revenues of the District
The District has expanded in its gov
/ eminent cost as its size has expanded
The tax rate in 1910 was $3.50 based
on a supposed assessment at two-thirds
value. The tax rate in 1925 was 81 40
| based upon a supposed, but not actual
| 100 per cent assessment. The tax rate
| in 1880 was $l.70 based again upon
| supposed 100 per cent value assess
ment."
Representative Simmons here pointed
out that the Senate this year accepted
1 the House proposal that the tax rate in
| Washington should not be reduced.
Were it not for that provision in the
| District bill" said Mr.. Simmons, land
| If the House accepted the Senate figures
! of $12,000,000 then the tax rate could
| be reduced from $l.70 next year to
sl.45."
He referred to the second point made
! in the statement by saying that 'ad-
hitting the increased values of the
| United States property they ignore the
vast increase of taxable property and
income in the District all of which
answers this question"
Third Point Reply.
Regarding the third point where the
Senate conferees refer to series OF pro-
posed municipal Improvements some OF
which are carried in the 1881 House
and Senate bill, many of which are not
authorized and for which appropriations
could not be made" said Mr.. Simmons,
his reply was as follows:
I'm my judgment the suggested mu-
nicipal Improvements in washington
can be met from current revenues with
out unduly burdening the people OF
Washington with taxes. Certainly the
taxpayer of Washington is under more
obligation to meet that cost than the
taxpayer of the United States. For mu-
nicipal developments the people OF
Washington should look to their own
resources rather than ask the United
States TO carry their burden
The Senate's fourth point, he pointed
out, raises the proposition first that the
Government by purchasing property
and removing 1t from the tax column
that the exemption of this class OF
property calls for compensating rev.
enues from the United States. In ar
attempt to refute this Mr.. Simmons re-
ferred TO a statement prepared by the
District assessor which he had mad IN
serted in the Congressional Record or
April T. He emphasized three points
as follows:
First. that purchases OF property by
the United States are generally at 6
figure that enables the owners TO inveS
in better pieces of property. The shit
in business locations from one place u
; another may thereby even add to thu
value of the business.
r Second, the wealth of the city doe:
4 not depend on its area OF amount o
ground covered by either business o.
! residences.
r Third, the real estate wealth of {
Y community is directly proportional Il
the number of individuals so that If thu
E number of inhabitants grow even Will
y purchases are being made the value o
S the community will grow in the sam
4 proportion"
Referring to the statement Of tn