Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-05-18
DUAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
CONCEPT DECLARED FALSE
Acceptance of Theory of Two Distinct
Entities Blamed for Unneces-
sary Controversy.

ton properly understood, such. adjec-
tives as generous" on the one hand,
or "ungrateful" on the other would not
be heard. Congress has not only tho
legal right, guaranteed to 1t IN express
terms by the Constitution, to legislate
for whatever kind of Federal city 1t
may. in the interest of the entire peo-
| pie of the United States, consider neces-
| sary or desirable, but 1t has, Of course,
, the right as well as the power to hx
| the limit of expenditures Of public funds
| for that purpose.
Taxes Must Be Proportionate.
On the other hand, taxes upon pri-
vately owned property must, In the In
tereSt of justice and in accordance with
sound economic policy. be levied not IN
proportion to Federal municipal ex-
| penditures, but in proportion to the
| lation. If Congress desires to limit
these resources by a restriction, for
instance, upon the height and charae-
ter of buildings, by coming the city, by
devcting enormous areas to streets An6
avenues, by exempting large tracts used
for religious and educational and recrea-
tional purposes, by forbidding certain
types OF manufacturing industry and
other sources of municipal wealth, all
in the interest of having the kind Of
city Congress wants and without special
reference to the economic welfare Of
the resident population, Congress Is en-
ttrely within its rights. The whole point
is, however. that you cannot manage q
municipality as a national project and
expect limited residential population
to build and maintain 1t on footing
commensurate with the dignity and
resources OF the United States.
If the views expressed have been
| If n,ake H.~~
upon comparison between Washington
and other American cities Is at once
apparent. Clear as the difference Ia IN
principle, 1t may admittedly be difHcult
OF application in detail. For instance,
streets and avenues are nontaxable
property. in most municipalities. II
washington were an ordinary munich
pality, could it have been laid out on
the magnificent scale which will some
day make 1t the most beautiful and dig
mined capital in the world? Imagine
the reception that would be accorded TO
a suggestion that the Federal Govern
ment would lay out q national park In a
particular State or city, provided such
state or city would pay for the plr-
chase of the land and the expense Of IFS
upkeep. Yet the taxpayers of Wash
lngton have been invited to approve the
idea Of the expenditure of $l5,0 1000
to acquire park, the title to which
would be in the Federal Government,
but the payment for which would be re-
couped by an additional burden Of q
million year upon the taxable prop
erty owned by the resident population.
In such q case 1t is not even claimed
that there Is any practicable augmen~
tation In the income producing value OF
the taxable property by reason Of such
project. To some extent the same
observation would apply 10 an expen-
sive airport.
Comparisons Misleading.
Comparisons with other American
leading. Yet they are constantly made.
If q particular project is one In which
the interest of the National Govern
ment Is but remote, and the interest ~
the resident is obvious and direct, tkaD
resident taxpayer has his attention anS
| vited to the average for the whole
| United States as q basis Of prudent
municipal expenditure; but II the prof.
ect is one In which the National Cove
eminent is specially interested, such g
the erection of a $4,000, 900 community
center then the nature Of the city - .
capital project Is emphasized and t1e
local taxpayer Is invited to rejoice IN
such a magnificent project, but q
course no statistics are brought forward
to show that cities of q comparable sire
would feel justified In expending even
half such a sum for such purely n1SA-
nicipal purpose.
It is admitted, Of course, that Com
gress has the right to Ak the taxable
value and the tax rate. It IS quite
clear from what has been said that this
has no logical relation to Federal niu-
nicipal expenditure, but here again
comparisons with other cities OF conn
parable size are INDUCED into show
that q particular rate does not exceed
a particular average. These COMPARE
sons are again worthless because many
of the municipalities included In the
statistical tables have had recent and
very rapid growth and are paying now
for municipal projects which in Wash
ington have long. since been financed
and paid for In full. Again, 1t Is the
net income return after the payment OF
| taxes which should determine the rate.
In residential city the return from
property occupied by the owners repre-
sents no income at all but one of the
| costs of living and In a city like Wash
| ington, which Is primarily residential,
| taxes on homes have to be paid out OF
| income derived from services or other
property. In other words, business
city is likely to have q larger increase
in taxable resources than residential
city.
Separate Entity Theory Confases.
But whatever may be said-and much
more could be said than the limits Of
this paper will permit-the thing Of
paramount Importance Is that all par
| ties concerned In the building md
| maintenance of the National Capital
should have q well-thought-out and
consistent attitude of mind as to the
respective duties and obligations Of
Congress on the one hand and Of the
resident population Of Washington on
the other. The greatest contributing
cause to confusion Of mind Is the tacit
acceptance Of the theory that there ex.
ist two separate and distinct govern
ment entities, one the Federal Govern
ment, representing all Of the people Of
the United States, and on the other
hand the District government, repre-
senting the half million residents of
| the District of Columbia. AS long as
these two entities are regarded as dig
tinct and as engaged in struggle, each
| to impose upon the other the rfajog
responsibility for the financing of ths
National Capital, no satisfactory agree
ment is likely to emerge
| 1t should be recognized that the two
parties 10 any controversy involving the
| fiscal relations of the inhabitants Of
the District of Columbia TO the Federal
Government are. on the one hand, the
Federal Government, in full manage
ment and control, In principle and de.
tail, Of every municipal activity; and,
| on the other hand, the unrepresented
residents of the District of Columbia.
On the one hand 1t Is the privilege of
the Government to finance the District
of Columbia in the interests NJ ali ty1A