Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-05-04
: Loss of Taxable Areas.

The Star today appears . statement
from the District assessor, Mr.. Rich
erds, recently inserted by Representa-
dive Simmons In the Congressional
Record. In this statement Mr.. Rich
ards champions the bizarre theory that
transfers of land areas from the
taxable TO the exempt list do not
Aend TO reduce the revenue-producing
capacity Of the District, but in reality
strengthen IL.
Mr.. RichardS' conclusions are faulty
ND because they are based upon condi-
kions that are immediate and temporary
Rnd ignore the really significant results
that are final and permanent: (O be-
cause they take into account primarily
che government tax-collector's interest
PIld point Of view and ignore partly or
entirely the loss or gain and distinct
and differing interest Of the District
taxpayers, and 90 because they over
look the difference In conditions be-
tween Washington with its rigidly lin
ted taxable areas which cannot be In
creased as In other cities by extensive
acquisitions OF adjacent territory In the
same State Similar extensions by the
Capital are into the adjacent sections Of
Virginia and Maryland. where the taxes
ere lost 10 the District
Thus one flaw In Mr. Richards reA-
coming results from overlooking the fact
that emily o limited and rigidly defined
amount of land Is available for the de-
velopnent Of tax-producing areas in the
District. While Los Angeles or Detroit
may double or quadruple the area with
in tts city limits, Washington cannot
extend its revenue-producing area into
Maryland or Virginia. To argue, a.
Mr.. Richards argues. that thsre ID only
gain and no loss from reducing the tax
able srea within the inelastio boun-
DIARIES Of the District Il, In effect. 10
claim that Il four-nfths Of the total
area becomes tax-exenapt ths remain
ing NTH would be more valuable and
productive Of greater revenue than II
the figures were reversed and four-ffths
Of the area veret taxable and only one
- af*l, ieHesnpt such o conclusion re-
duces4 to en- absurdity. but II b merely
the logical extension Of Mr.. Richards
Nremise. "a
II the accessible residence % buA-
uess areas were confined b ths limits
Of thu District, m might be the case
q the District were an isolated island,
Nr. Richards contention might be
more plausible. -. But local residence
and business are not confined to the
iimits Of the District. They easily may
be driven into adjacent Maryland and
Virginia, where their taxes VIII be lost
20 the. District. Assuming that In time
the whole area Of the city will b de-
veloped to the point Of maximum use
value, It Is impossible to maintain that
Q fraction Of the taxable area would OF
chat time be capable Of producing more
revenue than the whole would produce.
q subjected to the same process Of de-
Nelopment. j..
What Is the Immediate effect Of
purchase or condemnation Of land for
government user II. a Mr.. Richards
contends, 1t increases values in taxable
areas and therefore assessments and
therefore taxes, the practical result II
simply an increased burden of taxation
thrown on decreasing area. which Is
che result expected and predicted.
Value may be increased for sale. but 10
those not wishing to sell and holding
their residence or business property for
private use, the result Is only the
greater tax burden that would naturally
follow, with no guarantee that higher
assessments necessarily connote an &C.
comparing increase In purchasing
power Of the community or Of business
for the enterprise affected. It Is not
convincing to show that the municipal
government in some instances collects
Immediately more taxes from the re-
duced taxable area. The point of view
Is not that Of the tax-colleeting govern
snent, either national or municipal, but
of the real estate taxpayers Of the Dis
trict. -,,.
Mr. Richards mentions the Southern
Railway Building transfer as q case In
support Of his argument, in which
values around Fifteenth and K streets
increased when the new structure, re-
placing the old building taken over
by the Government, was erected. He
does not mention the equally resultant
loss Of 1900 officers and employees. with
their families, who were moved from
the Washington headquarters TO the
Atlanta haadniIa that thu
ousted railroad for q time was con-
Eldering withdrawing It's headquarters
from Washington bodily In response TO
attractive bids from other cities.
MIR. Richards will doubtless admit, al
though his statement does not mention
It, that there ia distinct difference be-
tween the immediate effect Of an iso-
lated transfer. such as the Southern
Building Cor even of all the transfers
brought about by the triangle condem-
nations) and the permanent results of
the continuation for an indefinite period
of the Government policy Of Withdraw
ting from taxation large slices Of the
city's taxable land. Such a deep and
fundamentally important question can
not be answered merely by showing that
for the time being the new part is more
productive Of revenue than the old
whole.
More than half the area OF Washing
ton City, as originally planned. was re-
moved from taxation and dedicated as
&xssta. . greater percentage Of street