Evening star., 1939-11-27
A Joint Responsibility

~ So'iit NeSPOnSIOIIlty
The park report by Messrs. H. S.
Wagner and Charles c. Sauers, made
public yesterday by its sponsor,
Secretary Ickes, places proper en-
phasis upon the disparity between
park acquisition and park main
tenance. The former has moved
ahead. The latter has moved back
ward. Park lands are being bought
much faster than they can be main
tanned.
AS the report points out, park
acquisition is not to be condemned.
On the other hand, it should be
encouraged, for sites available for
park development now will not be
available a few years hence and, if
they are, the prices may be pro-
hibitive. But while park area has
been increased, park maintenance
funds have been cut dangerously.
Improved park area represents only
sixty per cent of the total. Yet
funds available for maintenance of
this fraction of park lands are only
what they were ten years ago.
The investigators suggested
principle for the division of park
expenses between the Federal Gov
ernment and the District of
Columbia which has interesting pos
sibilities. Let the Federal Govern
ment bear the expenses, they said of
aesthetic details" and facilities
Tor human use, recreational op-
portunities and the like" be paid
for by District taxpayers. I'VE be-
heve there is adequate support for
the continuance of the present policy
OF joint financial responsibility for
the acquisition, development and
maintenance of the National Capt.
tai parks. 1t is distinctly the rule
IN the capitals of the world"
This joint financial responsibility
was the policy under which the
parks were to be acquired and de-
veloped. The breakdown which has
now occurred. in which parks are
not being adequately maintained,
is due IN part to the breakdown in
the policy of joint financial RESPONSE
bility.
The original broad principle of the
Capper-Cramton park acquisition
DILL was that the funds authorized
for National Capital parks purchase
would represent contributions of a
penny per capita from the people
of the Undited States. The Ian
guage of the original bill thus SYM
bollzed the Nations interest in the
great park system which was to be
part of the Nations Capital.
What happened? AS finally en-
acted, the law provided that funds
were to be shared on the same basis
that District appropriations were
shared between the Federal and Dis
trict Governments, this division,
at the time, representing a ratio
somewhere between sixty-forty and
seventy-thirty per cent. But as funds
for expenditure under the act be-
came available, the national payment
declined and the fixed proportion
was discarded. Today the District
is paying seven-ninths of the Cap
per-Cramton advances for park pur-
chase within the District and
Seven-ninths of the funds for main
tenance, protection and operation of
the parks. Little wonder that main
tenance funds have become made
quate. The lions share of the cost
for a park system designed as an
important establishment of the
American Capital has been placed
on local taxpayers, whose tax reve-
nues do not stretch far enough to
cover parks and the other expensive
Capital City needs.
The result is that the parks are
not being developed or maintained
as an aesthetic" background for the
American Capital, nor are the local
taxpayers reaping the full advan-
tages from the parks to which they
are entitled. A properly organized
park staff would remedy many of
the deficiencies found by the investi-
gators. But the parks swill not be
developed nor maintained adequately
unless there is new emphasis placed
upon the conception not only of di-
vided financial responsibility, be-
tween Nation and Washington COM
munity, but of financial responsibility
fairly divided.