Evening star., 1945-11-17
The Terms Are Not Fair

Inc Terms Are NOT folr
The justices of the District Court
and the Court of Appeals have made
a convincing argument for a new
courts building. the merits of which
are not to be denied. But the Com
missioners have been too hasty in
agreeing to the proposed financing
terms. 1t might save time, in the
long run. if these terms were re-
viewed and revised now. They are
unfair to the local taxpayer.
The local taxpayer contributes go
per cent to the operating costs of
the District Court and 80 per cent of
those of the Court of Appeals. This
division of expense is based on an
approximation of the volume of local
services performed by these Federal
courts.
On the same theory, the District
taxpayer is now being asked to as
sumo half the cost of new Federal
courts building, which is estimated
to be $12,500,000. BY way of COM
parison, the United States Supreme
Court Building cost $9,646,OO0. Fur
thermore, the Commissioners seem
to have agreed to donate half the
appraised value of the site, which is
owned by the District.
This goes too far. The new build
ing will be Federal building, title
resting in the name of the United
States. Federal court buildings
throughout the United States are
paid for exclusively by the Federal
Government. The people of the Dis
trict, through their Federal taxes,
contribute to the cost of these build
ings as every citizen does. Why
should the local taxpayer pay half
the cost of the proposed Federal
courts building here, in addition to
what he will pay as a National
taxpayer? The capital investment
represented is purely national in
character, no matter how the later
operating costs may be divided.
If it is fair for the local taxpayer
to contribute half the cost of the
new Federal courts building, why is
it not fair for the National Govern
ment to pay half the cost of the
municipal buildings built and to be
built on the adjacent sites? The
municipal government is merely a
Federal agency for governing the
Capital of the United States. Yet,
in this case, the National contribu-
tion is less than 10 per cent.
The history of the site chosen for
the new courts building sheds an
interesting light on this proposed
deal. In 1889 the Commissioners
were told that the present Municipal
Building would be needed in the
Avenue Triangle development and
were advised to look around for a
new home. They asked Congress to
authorize purchase of two lots for a
development costing about $12,OO0,- =
600. In return, it was understood
the District would receive about
$5,0O0000 for the present Municipal
Building. But about this time the
District became the victim of delu-
s1onS OF grandeur in Congress, and
the Commissioners were ordered to
acquire land for a great Municipal
Center, to cost some $22 100000,
which would be fitting architec-
tural establishment of the National
Capital. The land was bought, but
the money to carry out the develop
ment was never forthcoming. The
site for the new courts building is
part Of the land acquired at that
time. And the Commissioners, for
some strange reason, have agreed to
donate half it's appraised value, al
though title will rest with the United
States and the District will have no
control whatever over the cost, the
size or the use of the building.
If the Federal Government feels
that new courts building costing
$12,50O, 900 is necessary for its courts
here, that is the business of the
Federal Government. But it is an
extravagant undertaking, if the local
taxpayer is to be assessed half the
cost. Our most expensive school
building will barely exceed $4,000, 900.
A new Home for the Aged and Infirm
will cost about million dollars. And
there are other local needs, far more
pressing than the estimated local
cost-as agreed to by the Commits
sioners-of monumental Federal
courts building.