Evening star., 1934-04-26
Parks and Public Works.

= am anu L obA4S w SAASs
Broadly speaking, the difference Of
opinion between the Park and Plan
ming Commission and the District
Commissioners-which has Temporal
rily delayed action on the proposed
legislation authorizing the District to
borrow from the P. w. A. for local
public works-is whether the terms
for repayment Of possible P. W. A.
advances would act to conflict with,
and delay, further advances under the
Capper- -Cramton park legislation.
The Commissioners are correctly
anxious not to commit the District to
large annual debt-funding payments.
The Park Commission people are as
anxious that agreements as to annual
funding payments take care Of
possible future advances under the
park legislation.
Specifically, the Commissioners are
willing that the District be obligated
to annual repayments Of not less than
$500,000 on P. w. A. advances and
not less than s250,00o on advances
for park purchase. The park people
think the Commissioners should spec
ify minimum repayment Of at least
$5OOOO0 (existing legislation specify
ing s1,ooo.ooo) a year on park ad-
vances. In either case the under
standing would be that the District
would repay more than the minimum
figure when the availability of local
revenues permitted it.
This situation further is compli-
Gated by two factors. One is that the
District is handicapped by a short
age Of revenue now and an uncer-
tainty as to available revenues for the
next few years. The other is that the
National Government has not carried
out the agreed upon terms Of the park
legislation; has already halted fur
ther advances, has impounded a por-
ton Of advances already made and
has held the District strictly to terms
for the repayment of a $4,000, 900
advance, although the actual amount
Of money advanced has been less than
$5,Ooo,O0o.
Had the National Government stuck
to its agreement and advanced money
regularly under the terms Of the park
legislation, there would be more point
to inSistence of the park planners that
the District be held rigidly to terms,
and that later obligations incurred
not be permitted to alter these terms.
AS it Is, the National Government has
already failed to carry out its side
Of the bargain as to park purchases.
Secretary Of the Interior Ickes is
also the public works administrator.
As Secretary Of the Interior he has
jurisdiction over National Capital
parks and park planning. As public
works administrator he would pass on
public works advances to the District.
He has been represented as saying
that he would agree to nothing that
would place in jeopardy the Capitals
park program.
A reasonable course out of the
dilemma might be for Congress to pass
legislation authorizing the District to
borrow from the P. w. A. and place,
If necessary, maximum on the in
debtedness thus to be incurred. The
terms for the repayment of such ad-
vances could appropriately be Left to
the Commissioners and the public
works administrator, Just as the terms
Of repaying advances to States and
cities are left for negotiation between
the P. w. A. and the local authorities.
The Commissioners would naturally
borrow only what they can repay
without undue burden on current rev.
enueS. Secretary 1ckes, as public
works administrator, would doubtless
see that the terms of repayment would
not endanger further advances under
the park legislation, If and when Con-
gress can be persuaded to appropriate
the park money already authorized.
The park legislation, noble in pur-
pose. has already embarrassed the
District because Of the failure by Con-
gress to live up to its part of the
agreement. 1t would be more unfor-
tunate if the park legislation pre-
vented further advances to the Dis
trict for Immediately pressing projects
leaving the District without the ben
eflts of either park legislation or P.
w. A. advances.