Highland Tenants Association. Hillsdale Civic Association. Information Committee of Southeast Neighborhood House. League of Women Voters, Southeast chapter. Let's Be Neighbors Civic Association. National Capital Housing Authority. Nichols Avenue School PTA. Oak Hill Civic Association Parklands Apartments, Cafritz management. Parklands Businessmen & Professional Association. Parklands Residence Council. Republican Precinct Organization. St. Francis Xavier Catholic Church. Southeast Civic Association. Southeast Hospital Foundation. Southeast Neighbors. Staff of Southeast Neighborhood House. CAPITOL HILL SOUTHEAST CITIZENS ASSOCIATION, INC. Honored chairman, the Capitol Hill Southeast Citizens Association is opposed to the home rule bills before the House of Representatives at the present time, especially the one passed by the U.S. Senate recently. They are nearly all based on the premise of accepting little responsibility for good government but emphasizing the spending of a great deal of money. The seat of government was selected in 1790 and located here because the Revolutionary soldiers interfered with the legislative operations of Congress in Philadelphia. The soldiers wished to be paid which was a just claim, but they carried their protests too far. The District of Columbia was established so that governmental operations could be carried out with no interruptions on the part of the public. Article I, section 8, paragraph 17, of the U.S. Constitution states: "The Congress shall have power 'to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district (not exceeding 10 miles square) as may, by cession of particular States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of Government of the United States * During the Civil War, conditions in Washington were beyond description. After the Civil War, the indebtedness in the District of Columbia grew and grew, with no means by which such debts could be paid. Then the District of Columbia government was changed, and the U.S. Congress assumed the responsibility for the indebtedness. The expenses of the Nation's Capital are far heavier today than they were in 1874 when the commissioner form of government was started. Ninety percent of the population demanding home rule, including Members of Congress, possess little knowledge of history. The main reasons that the Capitol Hill Southeast Citizens Association is opposed to home rule are: 1. Too many property owners and reliable residents of the District of Columbia will not be able to vote in the District. Those living in embassies and repre sentatives of foreign governments are ineligible. The Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps residents with their families cannot vote. Nearly all personnel in the various government offices and holding property but who vote in the various States cannot vote here. Maryland Members of Congress seem to be most anxious for home rule in the District, as they hope the heavy District of Columbia taxpayers will sell their property here and move to Maryland. Mr. Horsky, adviser in the White House, lives in Maryland and is negotiating for the dissolution of the District of Columbia. The exodus of large and small property owners out of Washington will place a serious burden on the taxpayers who are left. 2. The Federal institutions and Government buildings and property to be defended and protected in Washington today are many times more valuable than they were in 1874. This organization realizes that the Federal Government will have to use the Federal contribution usually given to the District to protect Federal holdings here. This organization urges Congress to withhold the $40 or more million Federal contribution to protect what valuable tracts and Government buildings that it now owns within the limits of the District of Columbia. 3. From what the District of Columbia politicians who hope to be elected and so seize control of the District government have done during the past year, the main activities appear to be to organize marches with one or more coffins or with baby carriages or to arrange demonstrations that could and would easily reach a climax in riots. Other plans demonstrated are to ruin public parks, dig swimming pools anywhere and allow children to wreck the glass panes in school buildings. They lack pride in the appearance of the Nation's Capital. When these elected officers with no responsibility toward the Federal Government buildings and property begin operations, the District of Columbia debt will reach millions. Who will pay the debt? 4. With limited money and District agencies like Sanitation and Police and schools operating with little efficiency under home rule, such programs will seriously interfere with visitors coming to the Nation's Capital; the tourist trade brings in enormous revenue at present. 5. When the indigent continue to pour into the Nation's Capital as they did after the Civil War, who will pay the relief bills? The District officials will have no money. 6. When the riots similar to the recent one in Los Angeles take place, who will protect private Washington property and businesses belonging to the citizens? The U.S. Congress Members cannot abrogate their responsibilities for the welfare and stability and safety of the Nation's Capital to an elected group with no experience, no ability and limited funds and powerful authority. Congressmen representing 185 million U.S. constituents should not come to Washington unless they are interested enough in the Nation's Capital to protect it. Members of Congress not wishing to assume responsibility for the welfare and protection of the District of Columbia can drop the matter, although the Constitution of the United States definitely includes such responsibility as part of their obligations as Members of Congress. The Capitol Hill Southeast Citizens Association is deeply grateful to those understanding legislators in Congress who have pride in the Nation's Capital and have assumed such heavy responsibilities in handling difficult assignments in order to be fair to all and still keep the Nation's Capital beautiful and safe. At present, no other nation's capital is as dignified and charming and handsome as Washington, D.C., really the capital of the world. The Capitol Hill Southeast Citizens Association hopes you will keep it that way. Thank you. Mrs. ELIZABETH DRAPER, Representative. SOUTHEAST BUSINESS MEN'S ASSOCIATION, INC., Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: As evidenced by correspondence over the years, this organization wishes to again emphasize its opposition to the passage of any home rule bill for the District of Columbia. Sincerely yours, WILLIAM M. SINCLAIR, President. PETITION Hon. JOHN L. MOMILLAN, Chairman, District of Columbia Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: We wish to advise you that we are against home rule for the District of Columbia. It failed once and cannot but fail again. Leland F. James, Hilda C. James, Mrs. William J. Moloney, Mary E. Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, PETITION Chairman, District of Columbia Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: We, the undersigned, wish to advise you that we are against home rule for the District of Columbia. It failed once and cannot but fail again. John W. Collier, Kermit S. Murphy, Laura S. Murphy, D. Hubbard WASHINGTON, D.C., August 23, 1965. Hon. JOHN LANNEAU MCMILLAN, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: The undersigned wish to advise you that they are against home rule for the District of Columbia. It failed once and cannot help but fail a second time. Respectfully yours, H. McCoy JONES. ROBERT D. TEDROW, Jr. HARVEY L. JONES. VIRGINIA C. JONES. WASHINGTON, D.C., February 1, 1965. Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Chairman, House District Committee, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN MCMILLAN: I am taking the liberty of enclosing a copy of my remarks against home rule, which I presented to the Citizens' Council's hearing on home rule legislation on December 29, 1964. I presented this paper as one who has given a great deal of time and effort trying to keep our business community vital. Should there be any statements in my remarks which you feel might be helpful to you on this important home rule question, please feel free to use same or any part thereof. Very truly yours, HENRY TRACHTENBERG. STATEMENT OF HENRY TRACHTEN BERG No one can deny that Washington, D.C., our Nation's Capital, is a city that all citizens of this country can look to with pride. The beautiful buildings, parks, clean thoroughfares, shrines, and historical records attract millions of visitors each year. And rightly so, because Washington, D.C., is every American's city. Our Federal city is the seat of freedom for all the world to see and they do. Washington, therefore, is a very special city and it requires a special government to govern it. It has been stated that most capital cities of the free world elect their own local governments, but it has not been said what benefits these cities derive from their own self-government and whether these cities are run more efficiently and just what fiscal problems they may or may not have. Also, do these cities compare favorably with Washington, D.C.? Some which I have visited do not, and I refer to London, Paris, and Rome. If those who advocate home rule for our Nation's Capital would lend their energy and efforts to correcting our two major problems, crime and inadequate schools, much would be gained. In fact, with these two problems under control, we could show the world that this is indeed a model city for all the world to see. Home rule will not improve inadequate housing, poverty, and other social problems because it takes money and lots of it. And lots more money would mean higher taxes to all citizens of the city or additional funds from the Federal Government to accomplish these things, and we certainly have no assurance of additional Government funds under the proposed formula for Federal payment. I well realize that over the years efforts have been made to alert Congress to the fiscal needs of our city and the response has left much to be desired— result insufficient funds. Our Government, which is big business, occupies a vast amount of real estate, has the use of all of the facilities of the city and still is not taxed on the same basis as other business and industry and I doubt if it ever will be. Under our present system, I am sure that if we would use all the talents and energy which we have at our command, we could convince Congress more funds must be allocated to our city. Congress must be convinced that this city is also their constituents' city. Home rule will accomplish one thing and that is increased taxes for every District of Columbia resident and property owner because the Congress will say that if the citizens of this city want self-government, then they will have to find a way to pay for it. For those who advocate a mayor at $20,000 or $21,000 per year salary and councilmen at $9,000 or $10,000 per year, someone should tell them about the economic facts of life. This city cannot thrive any better today under home rule than it did when it had self-government in the 1800's because the uncontrollable growth of the suburbs in Maryland and Virginia has drained off thousands of taxpayers, many of whom work for our biggest industry, the Government. And in closing, let me say I fear that under home rule, with increased taxes, we will lose more taxpayers in the surrounding States. WASHINGTON, D.C., February 6, 1965. Hon. J. L. MCMILLAN, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: I am a citizen of the District of Columbia, and a property owner. I am very much interested in how the District is governed. I am very much opposed to home rule for the District. I have been a resident here for over 15 years. I want to put emphasis on this. I am a native of Pennsylvania. Those who are for home rule, claim that only people from the South are opposed to it. From the survey I have made there is just as many from the northern States who don't want it. The propaganda is to our opposition that it is racial with us which is untrue. They use that as their main weapon. One of the Commissioners is a Negro and I have never heard anyone speak detrimental of him. I feel that all the citizens throughout the United States have a share in the District of Columbia. I do not desire to see its way of functioning changed. I know all the congressional representatives of my State of Pennsylvania are to be relied on in seeing to it that the laws pertaining to it will probably be enforced. I am sure that congressional representatives of other States can be relied on to act likewise. I do hope that you will do all in your power to prevent such a bill as home rule from being passed. Mrs. CAROLINE BAUGH MAN. WASHINGTON, D.C., February 8, 1965. Hon. JOHN L. MOMILLAN, House of Representatives, Washington, D.V. MY DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: As a native Washingtonian I wish to register my protest against the President's proposed home rule for the District of Columbia. My reasons for this stand are as follows: (1) To put this plan into effect it would require a greatly increased tax structure and I feel that those of us who pay taxes in the District would find the burden intolerable. I have spent my whole life here but, if taxes are increased much beyond the present level, my husband and I will have to give up our home here and live where the cost of living would be less. (2) The Capital City belongs to all the people of the United States and I feel that they should have a share in its maintenance. (3) I do not feel that the citizens of the District of Columbia are, generally speaking, either financially or culturally capable of assuming the responsibility of self-government. (4) The recent election demonstrated the fact that a two-party system does not exist in Washington. This being the case the opposition would have little opportunity to make itself heard. I, therefore, feel that the present form of government for the District of Columbia is better, at least for the present. I trust that you will weigh these points carefully when it becomes necessary for you to make your decision on this important question. Sincerely, HELEN L. BLEVINS. WASHINGTON, D.C., February 8, 1965. Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, DEAR REPRESENTATIVE MCMILLAN: As a resident of the Washington area for 20 years, and a property owner in the District of Columbia for 9 years, permit me to tell you how so many owe so much to so few. I refer to the stand your committee has maintained on home rule. May you hold that line against the idle chatter of the Washington Post, and the "me too" echoes of the Washington Star and the Daily News. To begin, I would not favor home rule even though Washington's population were 90 percent white. Washington is truly a Federal city. The salaries of Federal workers and officials are paid by the taxes of all the U.S. citizens across the country. Washington is not a London, a Paris, or a Rome where industry and business dominate government. Washington is almost entirely Government. It produces nothing in GNP, like Detroit's autos, Akron's rubber, Pittsburgh's steel, or Toledo's glass. Since it consumes tax money wildly, why should its citizens expect to form a closed corporation? The reasoning is too dangerous to contemplate. Should your committee come to grips with home rule legislation, I would like to make a suggestion that all Members of Congress, fearful of it, would counter by proposing a much higher Federal contribution to the District. This would give you an offensive position and take home rule advocates off guard. It is difficult to justify the Government's small contribution at the expense of District taxpayers. The fantastic break-ins of our houses started inaugural week when all precinct police available were drawn downtown for special duties. If the District hikes our property 50 percent more as a tax base, what fairness is there for the Government to enjoy the old tax base? I have every hope that you can win this fight for us, and all Americans, and I write this letter in an effort to help and encourage you. Good luck, sir. Sincerely, |