Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-07-22
Growth of the Suburbs.

FINAL ngureS on the pOpulaJlOn CROWN
of areas adjacent to Washington should
dispel any mystery that may have been
left in the minds of those unable to
explain the relatively small growth in
the population of the District of Column
bia itself. For the figures offer definite
and corroborative evidence of the move
ment of population from the city to the
suburbs, common TO nearly every large
city in the United States during the
last ten-year period, as it affects Wash
ington. They permit definite informa-
ton to take the place of conjecture as
to why Washingtons growth failed to
measure up to expectations and they
present clear picture of conditions
with which the District of Columbia
must deal In the years to come, pro-
vided the movement of the last ten
years continues.
Arlington County'S growth of 62.5
per cent in the last ten years is fol-
lowed next by that of Montgomery
County, which increased by 40 per cent;
increase; Alexandria, 1919, and Fairfax,
16.5. The average growth OF the nearby
and adjacent counties is 37.6, as COM
pared to the growth of IL per cent in
the District of Columbia. In numbers
there were 48,145 residents added to
Washington in the last 10 years, COM
pared to the SO, 498 added TO the nearby
counties. The greater part of the lat
ter increase. it is only natural to be-
lieve. was furnished by the overflow
from Washington.
Washington's so-called metropolitan
area Is not drawn as a circle. It's
boundaries are irregular. But a
shopping area" for the. city can be
considered as embracing the area
within a twenty-five mile radius
Within this area should fall varying
portions of Prince William and Lou
doun Counties. Va; Howard, Anne
Arundel and Charles Counties, Md,
with their combined population of
Al, 1000. Adding to this figure the pop
ulation of the adjacent counties,
1874, 8O9, and of the District itself,
485, 716, the shopping area" popula-
ton can be estimated at 7l7,525.
District of Columbia business, becom-
ing the center for an ever-expanding
area of population, will naturally re-
ceive dement's. On the other hand the
District of Columbia is placed in a
peculiar position, alone among all the
cities of the United States, in that its
boundaries are fixed by the Constitution
itself. When population oyerfiows these
boundaries, that population is lost to the
District as a part of the tax-paying
community. Other cities may expand
their limits at will, broadening their
areas manifold and exacting tribute in
taxes from those who live within the
new and larger area. Those who leave
the District, or who, coming to Wash
ington to establish themselves in bust
ness. decide to maintain residences in
the counties, are lost as tax-paying resi-
dents. who otherwise would be called
upon to contribute their share In main
tanning the municipality.
If the trend of the last ten years
continues the City of Washington may
to all intents and purposes be counted
among the cities of more than mil
lion. But for tax purposes its popu-
lation will be- merely half, or little
more than half, of this number.
The effect of the movement of popu-
lation upon the tax resources of Wash
ington, coupled with the continued
Withdrawals of Government land from
the taxable to the tax-exempt property
lists, furnishes a condition that must
receive major consideration in arriving
at an equitable division of costs between
the Federal Government and the Dis
trict of Columbia.