Evening star., 1930-12-03
The District BUDGET.


building projects and as the result Of
the wise budget policy adopted by Di-
rector Roop, In the Budget Bureaus
handling Of municipal items, represents
in the main the recommendation Of
the District Commissioners with no
drastic curtailments to result in unnec-
essary accumulations Of surplus reve-
nues. The budget this year sets an in
teresting precedent in putting aside a
sum Of million and half dollars for
use on the Municipal Center, If and
when the completion Of plans, ETC., by
the municipal architect, permits use Of
the money IN the fiscal year appro-
priated for.
The budget Is based ON a revenue
availability from the tax yield estimated
on current tax rates plus last years
Federal lump sum contribution Of So
100000. The fact that last years in
crease Of half million dollars over the
previous lump sums is thus carried for
ward does not mean that the lump sum
as set down Is anywhere near adequate,
or representative of the Federal Govern
ment's interest in the projects to be
financed or in keeping with the
letter or the spirit Of substantive law,
never repealed. The use Of the arbitrary
figure Of nine and half million by the
Commissioners and by the Budget Bu-
reau Is merely in accordance with the
latter's accepted practice Of refusing to
make recommendations construable as
initiating legislation. Increasing the
lump sum Is, Of course, a legislative
duty that lies outside the jurisdiction Of
the Budget Bureau.
The Commissioners and the Bureau
Of the Budget, however, make an ex-
ception as to the division of expenses
in the proposed widening and paving of
3 street northwest from Fourteenth
street to Virginia avenue. They divide
the cost Of this project, which has been
linked from the beginning as one of the
plans in connection with the Arlington
Memorial Bridge, on the sixty-forty
basis. with the District Of Columbia
contributing the lions share.
Thus we have the enlightening pic
ture Of District budget wherein the
only item to be financed in accordance
with the law Is made an exception. As
matter Of fact and equity, the B street
item Is in keeping with the law and the
remainder Of the District bill, con-
templating the expenditure of some
forty-nine millions over and above the
street-widening project, Is an exception.
Whether the District should In reality
be called upon to pay IS much as sixty
per cent Is question which includes
many Of the controversial points In
issue between the District and Federal
Governments In dividing expenses for
the Capital between them. II the Dis
trict bill as o whole were lawfully A.
nanced on q basis Of sixty-forty, there
would be no such question. In this
particular case the Federal nature Of
the widening Of B street Is 50 clear-cut
as TO demand specific recognition. The
question is, however, whether the project
- not more national than It is local.
In the case Of the Municipal Center,
which up to this time has been financed
as a purely local undertaking, the scale
upon which this immense undertaking
is planned Is even more Federal in its
concept than Is the widening Of B street.
Here the District Is being committed to
the building Of q grand array Of monu-
mental and costly structures wholly be-
cause the local administration buildings
should conform TO the scale of the
adjacent Federal buildings. The Dis
trict Is about to be ousted from build
ing which cost two and a half millions
and Is now valued at five millions, and
viii move into marble palace, the cost
of which is estimated In the neighbor-
hood Of $25, ,00o. 900. One Of the finest
and costliest ONCE buildings in WASH
1ngton Is the Southern Railway Build
ing, erected at total cost for site and
building Of $3200, 900. An addition to
the present Municipal Building, entirely
adequate for the utilitarian needs of the
city government. could be erected for
less than nth Of what Is going to be
spent on the Municipal Center to make
1t meet the high symbolic standard set
for the Federal buildings.
This Is not TO be interpreted as de-
batting the wisdom or attacking the
1dealism represented in the Municipal
Center project It does show the utter
Inconsistency, the inequitable point OF
view and the increased burdens to local
taxpayers that result from the hap
hazard method Of financing the Capital
under the iniquitous lump sum method
It emphasizes the duty of Congress To
recognize the specific semi-national
nature Of the Municipal Center project
by appropriate legislation that will
commit the Federal Government to a
fair share Of the cost. Representative
Simmons of Nebraska has introduced a
bill that In effect would indemnify the
District for the loss of the Municipal
Building and transfer to its credit
applicable toward Municipal Center
construction, the sum of $5,o0o,00o. But
In arriving at the total Federal contTi-
button toward the Municipal Csnter, tns
balance should be struck between thi:
sum plus some amount representing
the normal cost OF an adequate addition
to house the growing agencies of tho
municipal government and the tota
cost Of the Municipal Center when com
pleted This balance would assuredl,
represent the excess cost to the tax
payers Of the District occasioned by tn,
fact that this is the National Capital
A Tsderal contribution Of nifty per cent