Evening star., 1946-11-24
Cooperation Needed
In Capitol Planning
Discord Between City and Park
Commission Unfortunate

Discord Between City and Park
Commission Unfortunate
By John w. Thompson, Jr.
The real problem In diplomacy locally
is not between the Soviet Union and the
United States, but between the District
Commissioners and the National Capital
Park and Planning Commission.
During the past year the attitude Of
these two groups toward each other has
become increasingly sour. Last week
their relations hit an all-time low when
two Of the Commissioners took bitter
exception to q news release issued by the
planners on joint conference regard-
ing the city slum clearance project.
Some of the differences between the
agencies are inherent in the laws under
which they operate. For example, the
Planning Commission, though q Federal
agency, gets its money largely from Dis
trict taxes. It's budget thus goes through
the District Commissioners, which gives
them considerable control of planning
activities through the amount of money
they are willing to approve for 1t.
On the other hand, the law vests In
the planning group the job of buying,
also with District money, land for park
and playground purposes. This has
been resented In the District Building,
especially since the title to the land.
though bought out Of local funds, re-
mains with the Federal Government.
Land purchases, to the Commissioners,
seem clearly an administrative function
which, for the city, ought to be vested
in the municipal administration, not q
Federal planning group.
Again the law gives the commission
the job of advising the city government
in matters of traffic and transportation,
highways, parks and parkways. school
and library sites, Fairgrounds, sewer,
water supply, building and coming regu-
lations and many other fields. But 1t
does not compel the city, except in GER
tain specific cases, to take the advica.
Thus, there is created an excellent bat
tleground when advice given from 0
focus on Washington as National Cap
ital collides with a focus on the city as
community, and Is ignored.
The picture presented out of all this
Is OF the planning group having to beg
operating expenses from the Commits
sioners as well as money to buy land
which District officials think they should
buy and own title to themselves. It Is
but another instance OF the confusion
that results from the dual status of
washington as Capital and as NUM-
cipality.
Unless these and perhaps few other
legal relationships are adjusted, there
viii always be a basis for friction be-
tween the two groups. The extent to
which 1t flares win depend pretty largely
on personalities especially the En-
| gineer Commissioner who Is also an ex
ofhcio member of the planning com.
mission, and the chairman Of the plan.
ming body.
The commission was created ON fts
present basis and given its present
name In 1926. From that time until
September 1912, it was under the chair
manship OF Frederic A. Delano, whose
prestige as planner was enhanced, dur
ing the years from 1892 on, by the fact
that he was the uncle Of the President.
| During this period there were many
undercover differences Of opinion but
nothing resembling the fiare-up Of last
week between Commissioner Guy Mason,
Engineer Commissioner Gordon r.
Young and Maj. Gen. q. s. Grant III.
planning chairman since Mr.. Delano
left.
This might well have been due to ths
tact and diplomacy Of MIR. Delano on the
one hand and the appreciation ut ths
District Building Of his access to the
White House on the other.
Two major issues during the past year,
however. widened the differences that
exist between the two agencies. These
were the Highway Bridge replace
ment fight and Engineer Commits.
sioner Gordon r. Youngs $22s, 900 900
six-year-plan Of new construction for
the city. There was also minor brush
with the Highway Department over the
recent widening Of Twentieth street NV.
and with the Board of Education over
the location Of a school in the Southeast.
| In the bridge controversy, the Com
missioners and Highway Director II. g.
Whitehurst, backed by the Public Roads
Administration, the Fine Arts Commis-
sion and others, wanted to build two
one-way bridges Of four lanes each.
Gen. Grant joined then Secretary Of
Interior Ickes In calling for o single
six-lane replacement. Mr.. Ickes left the
cabinet and Gen. Grant bowed out Of
the argument when President Truman
entered 1t on the side of twin bridges,
which have now been authorized.
In his big six-year plan Gen. Young
trod all over the toes Of the planning
commission. He turned thumbs down
on the Federal development Of East
Capitol street. He criticized the Federal
planners for failing to provide adequate
parking for the Mall area Federal build-
ings. He made point Of the fact that
the commission, though requested, had
not submitted a trsfic and subways
plan-not withstanding the fact that
the commission was troubled with staff
shortages and money problems. He called
for commission studies of the present
parking program and of all Federal land
holdings of which require money
that is not available,
| $50
What both agencies have got to realize
/ e. kt-A l.