Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1956-11-01
'FreehoIders' Issue

The action Of Oscar r. Lee
beau in appearing before the
Arlington School Board is only
in keeping with the modus
operandi of the Citizens Com
mittee for School Improve
ment, Community Council for
Social Progress, County Civic
Federation and several other
groups, all having interlock-
ing directorates and creating
confusing impressions regard
ing the bill which will be on
the ballot next Tuesday and
which stresses that all "quali-
fled voters who are freeholders,
as well as all voters" shall APP
prove bond issues. These
groups constantly repeat the
same misquotes over and over,
thus pulling wool over the
eyes of the electorate.
1t is not true that this
measure is designed to defeat
bond issues. 1t allows those
who are most concerned with
the stability of the finances Of
the county to evaluate the
free spending of those who
are not concerned with the
long haul of the bonded in
debtedneSs. There are now in
the county. according to the
county treasurer, between H.
900 and 10000 families where
the head of the family claims
all community property and
pays no tax in the county.
taking advantage Of the Sol-
diers and Sailors Act: and half
of their wives are voters, thus
giving an advantage over the
taxpaying homeowner. We
have a large turnover of
transients who do not feel the
same responsibility about the
stability Of the county, people
who vote one or two years and
then move away.
Persons who have struggled
to accumulate something are
in better position to under
stand the responsibility of in
curing Indebtedness than
those who depend on the
other fellow to pay for i'm
provements. Any crisis which
develops will be because
bonded indebtedness is in
creased. causing taxes to go
so high that people will by
pass Arlington and those now
there will move. That is a real
threat.
Karl o. Spices, ST.,
President, Homeowners' Fed
Grafton Of Arlington.
The so-called "freeholders"
referendum on the ballot in
Arlington County is an attempt
to exhume an ancient, dis
credited curb on democracy.
The question to be placed be-
for Arlington voters is: Shall
county bond issues be subject
to approval of a majority of
the voters who are freeholders
(as well as a majority Of the
voters of the county voting
in bond elections?" What is
proposed is that real estate
owners be given a veto power
over Arlington bond issues. but
it also implies the establish
ment of two classes Of voting
citizens in the county.
Underlying the "freeholder"
scheme is a principle which
holds that certain citizens, by
reason Of owning real prop
erty, are better qualified than
other citizens to pass upon the
county's borrowing--and. by
the same token. its spending
and that nonowners Of
property shall not be permit
ted any effective voice in these
decisions. II we accept the
principle inherent in this
proposition. the question
arises as TO why it need be
limited to bond issues. If one
group Of voters is somehow
better equipped TO deal with
our county's fiscal problems,
then why shouldn't they also
elect the officials who handle
our bond and other revenues?
Our County Board establishes
the policies which affect our
county FUNDS, and these funds
are administered by our vari-
Gus elected county officers. II
). has any validity, there Is no
logical reason 10 limit the APP
plication Of the "freeholder"
principle to a bond issue veto.
Am I a "freeholder"? L
don't know. I am buying the
house in which I live, but the
mortgage does not encourage
me 20 consider myself a free
holder" Ny house payments
are neither less frequent nor
less essential than rent pay
ments.
This raises another funda-
mental question about the
"freeholder" theory: II prop
4