Evening star., 1934-11-25

the G0-40 ratio involved In the tempo
rary lump-payment plan Of 1925, and
succeeding years to date merely sus-
pend the substantive law OF 1922 for
the year during which the exceptions
apply and do not repeal or perma-
nently amend the substantive law.
The lump-sum payment plan. by
ignoring the laws specific direction of
a 60-40 division of the cost, and by
failing to make specific increase OF
the lump-sum payment to satisfy the
laws direction of q National 40 per
cent contribution, has practically
thrown the whole cost Of Park Com
mission expenditures upon the local
taxpayers. 1t has converted q fine,
wise, broadly National project, which
the self-decefved District enthusiastic
cally indorsed, into an unjust increase
Of the local taxpayers tax burden.
against which the District taxpayer
has vigorously protested.
When the original National Capital
Park and Planning Commission law
was enacted in 1924 the United States
was contributing approximately 40 per
cent to expenses Of the District and
this law declared that the funds ap-
propriated to carry out the purposes Of
the act Shall be paid from the
revenues of the District Of Columbia
and the general funds Of the Treasury
IN the same proportion as other ex-
penses of the District of Columbia"
The park development law, subsequent
lvy urorfAd authorized nf
100000 to the Park and Planning
Commission for park and playground
purchase and DEVELOPMENT in the Dis
trict, to be repaid at the rate of
81 100000 a year, and when the first
payment became due in the fiscal year
1881 the United States contribution to
District expenses had already been re-
duced, under lump-sum practice, to
approximately 20 per cent. Advances
Of funds for park purchases have been
halted, only a fraction Of the total
amount authorized has been advanced,
yet the District has been held to the
annual repayment of s1,000,0o q
year, while the United States contri-
button, in the current fiscal year, has
been reduced to approximately II per
cent.
Paralyzes Permanent Improvements.
(d) It paralyzes all great and costly
permanent improvements and all loans
for such Improvements by creating in
the community q reasonable doubt
whether the National partner in
financing the improvements and re-
paying the loans will not exact every
cent of payments for primarily Ma
tional or semi National projects from
the impotent local partner, the Dis
trict taxpayers.
(e) 1t taints with bad faith and
hurtful injustice the Districts new or
ganic act Of 1922.
The understanding, when the act Of
June 20, 1922, was agreed upon by
House and Senate, viewed that act as
q compromise measure. disposing for
many years of our troublesome fiscal
relation issues. The Districts contri-
button toward Capital upbuilding was
increased from so to so per cent; its
tax rate on intangible personally was
increased 6625 per cent, and the foun-
dation was laid (though intent to in
crease was disclaimed) for increasing
its realty tax; 1t was deprived OF ex-
elusive credit for large sums Of miscel-
laneous receipts hitherto solely en-
ioyed, this action infiicting . heavy
loss, and 1t was compelled to accumu-
late from Its tax money Of present
years (every cent Of which was needed
to meet the urgent municipal needs Of
today q fund of millions to provide
in advance for meeting the frst half
year expenses of 1928 and Of subse-
euent years.
In partial compensation for these
drastic exactions the District was to
enjoy specifically for five years and in
definitely thereafter the benefit of ap-
proximate certainty as to its rates of
proportionate contribution; in order to
spare the District all controversy for
these five years over ratios and tax
rates the law in specific terms levied
In advance that year "for each Of the
fiscal years ending June 80, 1928, 1924,
1925, 1926 and 1927" indicated how the
tax rate should be 1utomaticaliy hxed