Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1952-10-05
WHO SHOULD PAY what for
WASHINGTON?

w Washington?
For six months, at the request
of the District Commissioners, a
group of % of the community's
leading citizens studied hard. The
question had not been put to them
in precisely that form. Specifically,
they had been asked to decide: /.
What needs to be done Immediately
to continue the building of Wash
ington into a city worthy of its
position as the Nations Capital?
2. Where are the funds for this
work to come from? Last week, in
a series Of installments running
Sunday through Thursday, the
Citizens Advisory Committee on
Public Works published its report.
The first of the two specific ques-
tons took more words to answer,
! but it was easier than the other
The committee found that a mini
mum of 1919 million will be needed
for capital improvements in the
District during the next six years
not counting additional sums that
should be spent on off-Street park
ing and redevelopment projects to
help preserve the city's rotting core.
The parking and redevelopment
projects were ignored because other
agencies already are planning for
them. But the committees total,
even though it was partial figure,
left no doubt about the shocking
size Of the backlog of unmet Wash
lngton needs.
For the committee was reporting
that, in the six-year period ahead,
more than $50 million should be
spent annually on the projects COW
cred in its study. (These, in de-
scending order of size, involve the
construction of schools and other
public buildings, improving high
ways, renovating the city's worn
out and inadequate sewer system
and building up its water SUPPLY
During the past six years, by
comparison, an average Of less
than $40 million has been spent
annually on such capital improve
ments. In other words, the COM
mittee put its finger on something
like 5000 million worth of things
which ought to have been done
here, but which have been left un-
done.
The Real Problem
1t was the second question, how
ever-who pays?-w which consti-
tuted the committees real problem.
The answer, in effect, was this:
The people of Washington should
take care of the lions share Of
this 5000 million bill for accumu-
lated back needs. They should pay
about $62 million of it in increased
water taxes and new sewer serv-
ice tax. They should borrow half
the remainder (about $50 million)
from the Federal Government, in a
50-year, interestafree loan.
The other 500 million, the COM
mittee said, should be provided out
right by the Federal Government.
And there, of course, was the rub.
The report went into some detail
as to why the people Of Washington
could not be expected to pay the
entire bill themselves. 1t pictured
the economic squeeze in which the
city finds itself today. The District,
the committee observed, is losing
more and more taxable land to the
Federal Government-already more
than so per cent Of its area. It
also is losing more and more good
taxpayers to the surrounding coun-
tryside. With every increase in tax
rates aimed at making up lost reve-
nues, it risks losing still more tax
payers. Fixed within its boundaries,
Washington cannot do as other
cities do, expanding its tax juris-
diction as the metropolitan area
expands. Yet its streets, its bridges
even its sewerage facilities must
serve q vast suburban population.
All these things the committee
pointed out, and concluded that to
impose the whole burden of the
necessary construction program on
the already heavily burdened Dis
trict would wreck the city's econ
omy. It was a persuasive argument.
Yet, even as they made it, the
members of the advisory commit
tee knew that If they succeeded in
driving home the point, theirs would
be a historic achievement indeed.
For behind the problem as they
presented it lay a fundamental
question of principle which has
plagued relations between the Dis
trict and the Federal Government
for more than $50 years now-and
which still is to be answered.