Evening star., 1943-05-23
End of q CHAPTER

1lC A1ClldbC uCNOlCu d 1CW lll1lluVCS
on Thursday afternoon to routine
consideration and passage, without
objection, of a House bill to end the
practice of assessing abutting prop
erty owners for half the cost, up to
certain limits, of new street paving
in the District. A little over quarter
of century ago the headlines would
have gloated over Repeal of the
Borland Amendment" Today it
passes almost unnoticed.
1t should be noted, ending as 1t
does another chapter in the history
of Washington's development by the
local taxpayer, which, unfortunately,
is not mplimentary to Uncle Sans
reputation for living up to his prom
ises. 1t is hard to remember local
act of Congress which caused the
bitter resentment, or worked such
arbitrary injustice on local taxpayers,
as the Borland amendment, adopted
in 1914 as rider on District appro-
priation bill. And while the cost that
it unfairly assessed against local
property owners is transferred now
to the gasoline tax fund, through the
bill just approved, even this welcome
reform tends to perpetuate the re-
pudiation, by Congress, of one of it's
earliest obligations in developing the
Capital
The story really begins with the
donation to the United States by the
original property owners, of half the
lots and all the land for streets and
avenues contaHsed in the original
boundaries of the old City of Wash
ington. The understanding was that
the United States, as it's share of the
bargain, would develop the streets
and avenues which the city planners
laid out-an ambitious highway
system consuming more than half
the total land area of the new Cap
ital, more street space than in any
CITY OF JIe WOTlQ.
But this was not done A Senate
committee, looking into the matter
in 1885, found that the only streets
developed by the National Govern
ment were those "indispensably
necessary for the convenience of
Congress and the public officers"
The rest had been developed at the
expense of the local community. This
committee, in the Southard report,
recommended that thence forward
half the cost of street develop
ment should be met by the National
Government and half the money
spent up to that time by the local
community should be refunded. But
the matter ended with this report.
In 1874 the House Judiciary Com
mittee found that up to 1871 the total
expenditures on street and avenue
improvement by the National Gov
ernment was a little over million
dollars, while the local taxpayers had
spent, in the same time, lover nine
times that amount" Four years
later, in 1878, Congress, through the
Districts Organic Act, assumed
future obligation by agreeing to pay
half the expenses Of the District,
including the development of its
costly highway system. 1t was under
this wise and fair policy that Wash
ington was transformed from a
slovenly villageM muddy streets, the
laughing stock of visitors from
abroad, into the Capital City whose
outlines we know today.
A few years later, however, the fine
intent of the Organic Act was re-
pudiated by legislation which pro-
vided that extension of the old city
street system into the suburban
wilderness, which then began at
Florida avenue, was to be paid for
by the abutting property owners and
local taxpayers, with no contribution
by the United States. This threat
ened to put a stop to extension of
the Capital street system and the
legislation was repealed after five
years. But in 1914 the Borland
amendment became law. 1t forced
abutting property owners to bear half
the cost of street paving, thus re-
ducing the National Governments
share from one-half to fourth.
1t was highly inequitable. For prop
erty owners had been paying taxes
for years for development of the
street system everywhere else in the
city, and now they were saddled in
addition with half the cost for i'm
provement of streets on which their
own property faced.
In the years between 1914 and 1880
the Borland amendment was fought,
piecemeal, in the courts, which cor
rected specific injustices-and there
were many-suffered by individual
taxpayers. The law was so riddled
by court opinions, including one by
the United States Supreme Court,
that it was rewritten in 1880 and its
hard provisions were to some extent
modified.
In the meantime. the National