Evening star., 1932-03-08
Observation-Disclosures
STUDIED BY SURVEY
OF LARGE j. s. CITIES
Engineering Firm Believes
Efficient Administration
Is Best Solution.
DISTRICT PER CAPITA
is HIGH ON LIST
Figures Also Show How Rise IN
Load Here Exceeds Average
of Other Municipalities.

stantly rising tax burdens lies in the
application of fundamental business
principles to the operation of State and
municipal governments and not In
arbitrary retrenchment schemes, dis
charge of public employees or colorful
graft probes" according to study OF
''Tax Reduction-Where and How to
Start" published by Ford Bacon &
Davis, Inc, engineers, of 80 Broadway.
New York City, and just released for
publication to newspapers.
This firm has made a specially of
surveying costs of administration in
municipalities and recommending
methods for eliminating waste and re-
ducing expenditure. In an announce
ment accompanying its pamphlet show
ing the results of a survey of per capita
governmental costs in cities, the firm
states that Dishonesty or misdirected
aim of public officials is not referred
to in the survey. Rather were our
studies directed to ascertainment OF
savings to be made in correctly work.
ing out the details Of departmental or
ganization and the elimination of
needless expenditures. Sharp reduc-
tions in costs of city government will
follow proper administration of public
affairs and lower taxes will result.
Everyone is becoming alive to the Ser1-
business of the problem, bankers are in
terested in maintaining the credit of
municipalities and the man in the street
is thinking about taxes. Public officials
realize that they must balance their
budgets as private business is doing"
Interest in Per Capita Costs.
Great interest attaches to the COM
parative per capita costs of government
in the various municipalities presented
by the engineering firm by reason of
the number of such comparisons that
have been made to indicate the relative
weight of the tax burden in Washing
ton, the most recent of these having
been by the Mapes Committee of the
House, the findings of which were in
terpreted in the House as showing a
relatively low tax burden in Washing
ton.
One Of the tables presented by the
engineering firm and one of its charts
are reproduced in connection with this
article and appear elsewhere on this
page.
The survey shows, says the engineer
ing firm, that the average cost of
government in 146 cities rose from $24
per capita in 1915 to S56 in 1929. The
cost per capita in Boston is shown to
be SS2; in Los Angeles, S80 in Detroit,
$75; in New York City, STA; in Buffalo,
S66; in Cleveland, $64 in Washing
ton, S63; in Philadelphia. S61; in San
Francisco, $50: in Milwaukee, $50; in
Pittsburgh, S54; in Chicago. s52 in st.
Louis, SAL, and in Baltimore, $37.
Whereas the per capita cost of govern
ment rose from s24 to $56 in IS years,
between 1915 to 1929, it advanced only
from $18 to $24 from 1905 to 1915"
Expanding City Functions.
The authors of the survey, C. B.
Cook, jr, and W. A. Van Hook, point
out that increases in cost of govern
ment largely represent the expansion of
municipal department functions. Some
perhaps are misdirected aims of citizens
who have urged and voted for non
essential improvements and activities
All, however, have been handed to the
administrations to start going, operate
and maintain in a short period of time.
1t Is not an Indictment of these officials
that they have been unable to work out
the refinements Of economies Of opera
ton. The new functions have come to
them too fast"
OF interest to Washington are the
comparative figures shown in the table:
Increase in costs of operation main
tenance and interest-l915 to 1929
per capita IA largest cities in the United
States"
While there are interesting COM
parsons in the per capita costs, divided
as to governmental functions. Washing
tonianS will find most interest in the
last two columns of the table-the
column showing per capita interest pay
mentS, and the column showing total
per capita cost for operation, main
tenance and interest. exclusive of out
lays for public improvements.
Variations in Debt.
The table shows that interest pay
ments in thirteen cities, not including
Washington. range from 81 81 per capita
in st. Louis to sl5.49 per capita in
New York City; that the per capita
interest burden in Milwaukee is ap-
proximately one-half of the interest
burden in Pittsburgh. and that the in
terest burden in Philadelphia, the third
largest city of the country, is more
than twice as great as the interest
burden in Chicago, the second largest
city of the Nation. The amount of in
crease in the interest burden between
1915 and 1929, is found varying from
the increase of from SLIT to s2.81 in
st. Louis to the Detroit increase
of from s1.56 to $3.50. 1t is
found that whereas Baltimores per
capita interest payments in 1915 were
greater than Philadelphia's per capita
S5.25 and S2.78 espectively-Philade del
phia's interest payments per capita now
exceed those of Baltimore-Sll6 SO and
$887 respectively.
These variations in the interest
burdens, it has been held, indicate
the misleading conclusions that are
inevitable if. in a comparison OF
tax burdens for current mainten-
ance (when the comparison is sought
as an index to what constitutes
fair and reasonable burden of taxa
tom the interest payments are in
cluded 1t is obvious that the amount
of interest paid, or the amount of
money a city has borrowed, depends
upon the inclination and the wishes of
the citizens themselves. Some of the
cities apparently have decided to bor
row huge sums for investment in pub
lie service enterprises, or for perma-
nent improvements or because the citi-
zens have been led into borrowing by
rash and extravagant politicians. Some
cities have accumulated large debts
while others have kept their indebted
ness at minimum. With such varia-
tions, it is argued that 1t is illogical to
believe that borrowing Is dictated by a
uniform necessity.
Interest Deductions.
In hearings before congressional com.
mittees Washingtonians have always
insisted that in comparisons as be.
tween other cities, or in comparisons
between Washington and other cities
interest payments should be deducted
IS payments of interest or payments t.
;~'--~ f19i o. hcndc1 indebtedness d(
not constitute q comparable factor