Evening star., 1932-02-01

| - Qen OF taxation III WdSIlluSIOl
| should compare favorably with
IL the burden of taxation in Other
comparable communities, rea-
sonable consideration being given t(
the peculiar disabilities under which
| this taXpaying community suffers
which make its tax burden harder
| to bear.
| The countless disputes over fiSca
relations have usually had their genesis
! in the claim that the people of Wash
/ ington are not paying their fair share
| toward Capital development because
I they are undertaXed.
| 1t is the purpose OF this and other
| articles that will follow to show that
WashingtonianS have been able to re-
| fute the charge Of undertaXation.
! WaShingtonians are confident today
that a fair analysis Of the latest avail,
able data reveals the Districts ta>
burden of today as relatively high.
The Right of Petition.
Having 10 voice in fixing its taxes, as
all other American cities do, Washing
ton is left with only the right of petit
ton. and must therefore. rely on the
fair -mindednesS of Congress to bt
equitable in passing judgment on this
question. In approaching the subject
of taxation Washington reminds mem
berS Of the Congress that they sit as
supreme judges over the District, from
whom the local taxpayer has no appeal
The local community, therefore, urges
the National Legislature to weigh care
fully all the factors that should be
considered in a comparison Of Wash
ingtOn with other municipalities, anC
to have in mind especially the fact that
the National Capital differs IN several
important respects from other Amert-
can cities
In comparing Washington's tax bur
den with other cities it is ccntendec
that there should be eliminated from,
the comparison % State taxes; (2)
expenditures elsewhere on interest and
sinking fund for funded Indebtedness
Since WaShingtOnlanS enjoy none OF
the benefits of statehood, they should
not be required to match that part OF
the tax bill of those who possess the
rights and privileges accompanying
citizenship in a State. Although Wash
ingtOn in recent Years has paid a con-
Stantly increasing proportion Of the
cost Of maintaining the Capital City
it has net this growing obligation out
of current revenues. 1t has no bonded
debt and should not have thrown into
expense incurred by cities that have
enjoyed the benefits Of bond issues.
And, Furthermore as heavy munich
pal Indebtedness in some cities is the
direct result Cf extravaganza. there is
no reason why WashingtOnianS should
be penalzed through higher taxes for
extravaganza elsewhere for which they
are in no way responsible.
The geographical boundaries OF
Washington are rigidly fixed and can
not expand. At the same time an un-
usually large part of the area within
those boundaries is taX-eXempt because
this is the National Capital. These
COnfine to narrow limits the area and
the community which must carry the
local tax burden.
Because this is the Capital Ct the
Nation. it has not had the industria.
development of other cities, which
would be a fertile source Of tax revenue
Washington recognizes that industrial
develOpme ent would not fit in with plans
for the development of the Nationa
Capital as the City Beautiful but il
submits that this restriction is an i'm
| pOrtant factor to be considered ir
weighing WaShngton's tax burden.
The inference that taxes are not as
/ high in Washington as elsewhere some
| times is drawn from the fact that the
| District has a low tax rate. But the
! rate per Sl00 of assessed value, stand
! ing alone, is no measure of the tax
! burden Of a city. It must be measured
! in connection with the basis of assess
ment and Washington has followed a
/ high standard Of assessment This has
/ been the situation in the past as well
as tOcay.
Always Highly Assessed.
| Going back to the beginning Of the
! present century. comparisons of ta1
! data Of 1890, 1905, 1906 and 1907 show
that in all of those years the Districts
assessment was very high, its rate low
and the resultant tax levy much above
! the American city average
Census data of 1890 showed that
Washington in that year had a greater
per capita municipal tax levy than 8O9
Of the 1903 American municipalities
| exceeding 1000 in population. In the
! census figures for 1890 Washington
meant the original city. not including
| Georgetown and the outlying district
1t was also shown that Washington S
! tax assessment was much higher in
1890 than that Of most cities of ap-
! prOXimately the sane size, and there
fore its apparent low rate of $3.50 pei
| 500 gave a false idea of the actual tax
burden.
In the period from 1890 to 1905
Washington extended from the boun-
dairy Of the original city to cover the
whole District, almost doubled its popu-
! latiOn. and even more nearly doubled its
real estate assessment. The same ShCW-
! ;,,rv
| high real estate assessment. coupled
with a moderate tax rate. producing for
| Washington a per capita tax burden
! distinctly above the average.
The Babcock Report.
1t is appropriate here to make ex-
tended reference to report from the
House District Committee in May 1896
! adversely reporting on Oh. R. 4448) "A
bill to repeal all provisions Of the law
! for the payment by the United States
of one-half Of the appropriations fol
| the District of Columbia" Z" That re-
! port which has come to be known as
| the BabcOck report, taking its name
! from the then chairman of the House
| District Committee was unanimously
! against the proposal for repeal of the
| fixed ratio and went at length into
the reasons for that opposition.
1t repeated the history of the found,
ing of the Capital, it referred at length
to the concept of the Capital in the
| minds of the founders, and of the
neglect of the Capital by the Fedora
Government in the early days of tht
| Republic.
Argument Against Repeal.
! In its argument against the propose
to repudiate the law of 1878, ther
only Is years old, the report declared
The fact that the Nation, which a
| the beginning took title by gift t
| -siXths of the area of the Nationa
Capital still owns more than half il
value of the real estate Of the District
| irrespective Of the streets. Of which