Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-09-27
SITE IN SOUTHWEST
PURCHASED BY D. C.
FOR FARM MARKET

Continued From First Page.)
of the jury for this property total
| SITE, 900. This would have carried the
i total purchase price too close to the
appropriation limit of S300,000 to leave
sufficient funds for the construction
! work
Therefore, it is explained, it was
found necessary to leave out of present
consideration TWO of the lots in the
southern half of the site, square 355.
One of these carries a condemnation
jury award of approximately $4,000
and is not to be acquired now since the
owner has protested the awarded price
The other is that owned by the refrig-
era ting concern, consisting OF quarter
of the square, for which the jury award
of S32,5 500 is to be reserved for its later
purchase.
| District Building records also show
some interesting comparisons as to val
uations of lot 800 in square 355, which
the refrigerating company is to allow
the District to use free of charge for as
long as two years, while awaiting addi-
tional funds with which TO effect its
purchase.
This lot is unimproved It's current
assessed value is s8.7l5 The award OF
| the condemnation jury was $32,
AnOLucE comparison
There exists another interesting COM
! parison. This lot 300 in square 35o, Cor
| which the refrigerating company is to
receive the iury's award of $50, 500, is
| lust about half the size of the half OF
the square block in square 354 for
| which the refrigerating concern re-
ceives but $4,000. Also. on the larger
area owned by the private concern, was
| a row of brick and frame houses. while
/ the more expensive but smaller lot was
vacant.
Debates in Congress, in the Seven
I tietF session, when the Farmers Mar
| ket expenditure was authorized, are
recalled in connection with current de-
yelopments in the project.
Senator Carter Glass Of Virginia at
that time, while arguing IN favor OF
selection Of the southwest site, IN
! stead of the proposed Patterson tract
! area, declared that not one dollar had
been spent or would be spent by private
interests in developing a private mar
ket in the northeast area, whereas
considerable private development had
been accomplished in the southwest.
Since that time, however. the Union
Market Terminal, with retail wholesale
and commission house facilities. has
been erected in the Patterson tract by
private interests at cost of over $780,
600. Provision has been made there
also for accommodation of the farmers.
Senator King of Utah, opposing the
measure for the southwest site, de-
clared during the debates: This site
will be of great advantage TO the Penn
sylvania Railroad Co.. and If the COM
mission merchants and wholesalers can
have the Government furnish them a
market site adjoining the railroad
station, it will be of great benefit to
them. I regard this bill as
| unjust and unwise. / think 1t Is I'M
fair to the people of the District, as
| well as TO the taxpayers of the United
| States. who will be called upon to make
no small contribution to the acquisi-
ton of the grounds .. In my
opinion, the overwh Ginning majority of
| the people in the District are not in
favor of the bill. I am unwilling to
| take the money out of the Treasury
of the United States for the purpose
of benefting the Pennsylvania Rail-
road Co. and the commission mer-
chants and wholesale dealers who are
greatly profiting in their business ac-
! tivities within the District Of Co
| lunbia"
Somewhat Questionable.
Again, Senator King asked: rs there
any reason why the Government of the
| United States or the District should
make an appropriation for one part of
! town or for another part of town for a
wholesale or a retail market?"
Senator Tydings of Maryland, also
opposed to the measure, replied, From
a legal standpoint the whole thing is
somewhat questionable. 1 do not know
Of any purely wholesale market any,
where which has been constructed with
funds of the people, unless it was con-
structed with the proceeds Of bond
issue submitted to the people Of the
commonwealth or municipality and in
that way ratified and made the law"
At another time in debate, Senator
Tydings said:
THE only Justification at all which
We can make for this expenditure would
be because OF its retail feature, where
all the people would have chance to
receive some benefit from dealing with
the producer without an Intermediary.
If We eliminate that feature of it-and
the Senator Glass says it is a whole
sale market-that is the purpose of it,
he says--what justification is there for
taking the money of the people of the
United States and the taxpayers of
Washington and using it TO further the
ends Of small group of people whose
interests are apt to be more selfish than
! patriotic"
The law was enacted and the money
later aVnr00Yiafad