Evening star., 1935-12-15
Equity Demands
Large Payment
by U. S.
Should Not Shirk Its
Duty as Tax
payer.

Our District Commissioners. in fine
public spirit, took the initiative IN
opening up the question Of the ade-
quacy of the national payment to-
ward Capital upbuilding. Through
their initiative the question became
live issue in the Budget Bureau. from
which 1t went up automatically as a
question of administrative policy to
the President. [Note.-1t was hoped
that definite recommendation for an
increased Federal payment would re-
suit. A comparative but inconclusive
tax survey under the Treasury De-
partment followed and there was no
presidential recommendation as had
been expected.1
We were in effect promised lin the
study of last year, a reweighing OF
the respective obligations of the Cap
ital and the Nation to maintain and
develop the Nations city, like that
conducted by the, Congressional Joint
Committee in 1915.
What, then, is the national obliga-
tion toward the maintenance and up
building of the Nations city, and how
adequately is that obligation being
met?
As Untaxed Property Owner.
1. The obligation first thought of
by the average American is based upon
the large percentage of District area
with improvements held by the Ma
tionaI Government exempt from taxa
| ton, to the cost of the expensive
maintenance of which District tax
payers contribute both in national
and in local taxes.
| (a) Some measure this obligation
by calculating the hypothetical tax
which would be paid upon the Ma
tional Government property if it were
assessed and taxed like privately
owned real estate. The proposition Is
not actually to tax national property.
but to suggest an equitable payment
in lieu of such taxation.
(b) Others use the same figures OF
national ownership to demonstrate a
national obligation to make equitable
and substantial payment in considera-
ton solely of the extensive area and
great value of national property
stricken from the tax roll and held
exempt from taxation.
In this. connection consider a few
pertinent figures. Assessor Richards
| G934) shows that the total exempt
property in Washington is slightly less
than 40 per cent of the total taxable
and exempt property, whereas similar
exemptions in other cities average less
than 20 per cent of that total. United
States property exempt $550,000, ,0OO)
is about so per cent of taxable real
estate (S1,135, ,000,00O).
Inability to Annex Suburbs Beyond
Boundaries.
Consider also the effect of inability
Of Washington to extend its area
over surrounding suburban areas ir
Maryland and Virginia by annexint
as other cities do these suburbs
Overflow of Washingtonians seeking
cheaper homes (purer air. into
suburbs in Maryland and Virginia Y
strong and steady. This exodus wa:
demonstrated clearly by 1880 census
figures, which show leSsened growth
in population from 1920 for District
and strikingly large increases IN pop
ulation of Maryland and Virginia
counties adjacent to Washington
These new Marylanders and Virgin
ians become real estate taxpayers in
those States and are in most cases
stricken from the District Of Colum.
bia tax list. Meanwhile the taxable
area within the city limits is steadily
and in some years largely decreased
by condemnations or purchases OF
privately owned land and improve
ments for public tax-exempt purposes
When a steadily decreasing fraction
of a city's area must bear the burden
of a constantly increasing tax levy
to meet the fast mounting expenses
of great and growing modern Capt.
tai, an excessive tax burden is inevi-
table.
Implied Promises,
Of the area of the original City OF
Washington, the Nation retained in
streets, reservations and donated lots
about five-sevenths.
1t sold donated lots, impliedly prom
ising the purchasers in its advertise
ments relief from expense of munic-
ipal improvements, such as streets,
etc.
Thus not half of the original city
(within old Boundary street, remained
taxable. e..
What an excessively large area of
streets and avenues withheld from
taxation and to be opened and i'm
proved meant to the taxpayers who