actions taken by the local government. The local government, I presume, would have the right to determine the assessments, would they not, on a piece of property? Would they have the right to change the assessment? Mr. SICKLES. They would have the right to assess but the Administrator of General Services is the one who would have the final authority on that. We are not going to leave it up to the local people. Mr. WILLIAMS. They do have the responsibilities for making assess ments now. Mr. SICKLES. That is right. Mr. WILLIAMS. They would also have the responsibility for setting the tax rate. Mr. SICKLES. Yes. They would have the responsibility for setting the tax rate, which applies uniformly. Mr. WILLIAMS. Therefore, they make the assessment; they set the tax rate; they send the bill under this formula, to the Treasurer for payment. Now, these are undoubtedly taxing powers which are being placed in the government of the District of Columbia but a taxing power which can tax the purse of the citizen of Maine, or the citizen of Missouri, or a citizen of Texas or New York or any other State of the Union, by virtue of the fact they can change the assessment on the Government property, that is in the District of Columbia. Now, in view of the fact that you are giving these people the authority to make the assessments and to set the taxes, by virtue of the fact that some of this money to pay these taxes is coming out of the Federal Treasury, are we not, in effect, imposing upon the people of the other 50 States, a form of taxation without representation? They would have no representation in setting the assessments or in determining the amount of tax? Mr. SICKLES. They are pretty well represented right here in this body, that sets up this working formula. Mr. WILLIAMS. But this legislation would abrogate the authority that this body has. Mr. SICKLES. Not completely. Mr. WILLIAMs. And place it with the GSA, would it not? Mr. SICKLES. Well, what you are doing, you are setting up again, you have to understand this is a working formula, so there can be a reasonable basis for payment on behalf of the Federal Government. The protection is that the Administrator of General Services is the one that insures that this is a reasonable assessment which is being placed, and he would determine that; it is true, without question, that the actual local tax rate would be determined by the local governing officials as it is in any community, and of course, the safeguard there, or the usual safeguard that any group of citizens have, with respect to elected officials-elected officials are going to be realistic. They are not going to tax just the Federal Government but they are going to apply this tax rate to the other private properties, and the business interests would have a very real concern, as well as all the other private citizens, with their homes, as well as real estate taxes are concerned. It would seem to me this is not an unusual thing as long as this is recognized as a workable formula for the Federal Constitution. Mr. WILLIAMS. Through the process of making GSA the guardian of the Public Treasury, or public expenditure in this sense, are we not in effect merely shifting that authority from the Appropriations Committees of the Congress, and placing it in an appointed official downtown? Mr. SICKLES. With this difference: If we leave the authority up here with us, and our Appropriations Committee, then you would have the process of the mayor and town council having to march up to the Hill with their local budget, and you would have what you do now, the question of justifying each part of the budget to a higher authority. What is involved, as far as the Administrator of General Services is concerned, is that he determines that the assessment is a valid, proper assessment, and that the rate which is being used is a proper one. He would not get into the question of what you are going to use the money for. Mr. WILLIAMS. I would think there is more dignity in bringing the budget to the Congress, than it would be in taking it to a bureaucrat for approval. Mr. SICKLES. As far as the dignity is concerned, I am not as much concerned with the formalities. Mr. WILLIAMS. Instead of coming to the Congress and seeking approval, they would have to go to someone in one of the agencies. Mr. SICKLES. It is very impressive and very restraining, I think, too, which is the concern that I would have. Mr. DOWDY. Let's get back to the provision in here for the formula. As I understand it-and correct me if I am wrong-one of the bases for setting the proportion of the taxes to be paid to the Federal Government, would be the percentage of property in the District that is in private hands, and the percentage of the District's property that is in the hands of the Federal Government. Is that correct-the taxable property? Mr. SICKLES. You are talking about the business income-point No. 3? Mr. DOWDY. No, no, no. I am talking about the real estate. Mr. SICKLES. Well, I think that what is determined is what is in effect the assessable base of the federally owned real estate in the metropolitan area. Mr. DowDY. In comparison with the percentage of the land in the District, that is privately owned, and the part that is publicly owned. Mr. SICKLES. I think that would necessarily become involved, because you have first, it seems to me, you have to do two things. You have to first find out from whatever source the assessment source is, what is the assessment base of the Federal Government which will be subject to the local real estate tax and then, anybody planning for the future would have to determine what the real estate assessment is for the balance of the District of Columbia. Mr. DowDY. Taxable property in the balance of the District. Mr. SICKLES. In order to determine what the total assessment base is, when they are trying to determine what the tax rate is, to determine the x amount of dollars needed to operate the District. Mr. Dowdy. All right. In the District of Columbia, there are certain exemptions. Let's assume now that this commission or government that is set up would be independent, and decides to follow the practice of many of the States, including my own, that homesteads are not taxed. So you would be cutting down by that alone, you would cut down the amount paid privately, and increase the amount paid by the Federal Government; isn't that true? Mr. SICKLES. The current situation is that all houses are subject to real estate tax. Mr. DowDY. That is right. Mr. SICKLES. You raised this question. At first, I had never thought-I don't think anybody would imagine they would stop taxing homes in the District of Columbia. I would have to look to see if there is anything specific. Mr. DowDY. There is imagination, not only in Congress, but in other legislative bodies; is there not? Mr. SICKLES. I would have to specifically check that. Mr. DOWDY. I am only suggesting that; perhaps I should not be putting that in anybody's mind. Mr. SICKLES. I must admit to not recalling at the moment. Maybe a member of the committee could point out as to whether it would have that authority or not, but at this moment, I don't recall whether they would have the authority or not to tax homes in the District of Columbia. I cannot imagine anybody would be planning to do so. I certainly would not be in favor of there not being taxes on the homes in the District of Columbia, on their assessment. I hate to cut it off, gentlemen. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit myself to further questions. I am running into a time problem. I did not particularly want to be the first one to sign the discharge petition. I hate to sort of bring this up, as an afront to the chairman and other members of the subcommittee, but I kind of, as a matter of personal involvement, wanted to be there when it was first available for signature. I don't know that I would get there in less than 5 minutes now. I wonder if you could defer to allow me I could consider this concluded. I rather enjoy this, but I am not sure that the citizens are getting a chance to testify. This is perhaps very unusual for a witness to ask to be excused, but I wonder if I might be able to excuse myself so I could participate in the discharge petition. Mr. WHITENER. The gentleman might come back tomorrow. Mr. SICKLES. I will glad to come back. That is entirely up to you. I was trying to be brief. Mr. DowDY. I have some more questions. Mr. SICKLES. I am glad to hear that. Mr. WHITENER. Yes. I would like, if you could come back tomorrow. The staff has reminded me that we have one gentleman who has a very brief 5-minute statement. Would you gentlemen mind? Mr. HORTON. I would like also to be excused. Mr. WHITENER. I hope you gentlemen physically have a safe trip. Mr. HORTON. Do any of you gentlemen want to go? Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Sharp. STATEMENT OF ALEXANDER SHARP, BETHESDA, MD. Mr. SHARP. My name is Alexander Sharp. I come from Bethesda, Md. I am 80 years old. I was born in the District of Columbia. I think that a change of setup here is a great mistake. That is all I have to say. The law and Constitution says that this committee-you set up the District Commissioners to run the District. That to me, is good, because if you gentlemen do your job, as I think you do, and honestly, they get paid whatever is necessary to run the District. That is all. Thank you. Mr. WHITENER. Any questions, gentlemen? Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Sharp. I feel as you do about this, of course, but if the people of the District of Columbia are insistent about having the right to local self-determination, and to run their own affairs, notwithstanding the constitutional stipulation, would you agree with me that the only way that we could do this within the framework of the Constitution, would be through retrocession of that portion of the District back to the State of Maryland? In the full local self-determination. Mr. SHARP. No, sir. I don't think it ought to be given back to Maryland, and I think that the people here are doing all right, whether they say so or not. Mr. WILLIAMS. You misunderstood my question, I think. Mr. SHARP. I beg your pardon. Mr. WILLIAMS. I say, isn't that the only way that it can be done. within the framework of the Constitution, if they must have it? Mr. SHARP. I am not qualified to say, sir. Mr. WILLIAMS. All right, sir. Mr. WHITENER. Any further questions? If not, at this point, Madam Reporter, I will place in the record a communication signed by approximately 400 residents in the northwest area of the city of Washington, opposing home rule. (The communication above described is as follows:) PETITION OPPOSING HOME RULE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Chairman, District of Columbia Committee, WASHINGTON, D. C., August 17, 1965. MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN MCMILLAN: Accompanying this letter are eight copies of a petition opposing home rule for the District of Columbia, which has been circulated by the writer and several other housewives, mostly among our friends and neighbors. These signatures, together with some which have been sent already to your committee, represent approximately 400 bona fide residents of the District of Columbia who are stanchly opposed to home rule. Many more names could have been obtained if time permitted and if this were not the vacation season. Organized groups unfortunately have made home rule for the District a civil rights issue. We are a small, unorganized, but very concerned group who feel there are many compelling reasons for rejecting home rule which have nothing to do with civil rights. The argument is often used that the voting privilege is a basic democratic right and should apply to the District of Columbia as well as the rest of the country. With this I can agree insofar as national elections are concerned, and feel strongly, therefore, that it would be much more satisfying and to the point to give residents of the District the privilege of voting for a Representative in Congress with full voting rights. After all Congress makes the laws by which we are governed. We have a voice already in purely local affairs by means of petition, testimony at hearings, and action through citizen's associa tions. To insist on the right to elect a topheavy superstructure of officials who would be play acting at home rule seems somewhat irresponsible and childish. Furthermore, the present form of government for the District of Columbia could be greatly strengthened and more efficient, and Congress could be relieved of much of the time-consuming detail and burden of running the city of Washington if it would delegate more authority to the Commissioners and other appointed officials. As far as I know, this suggestion has never been made or considered. We who signed the petition strongly urge that this be tried before any form of home rule legislation is enacted. I respectfully request that this letter and the attached petition and signatures be given full consideration by the committee and made a part of the record of the hearings on home rule before the House District Committee beginning August 18, 1965. Respectfully yours, DOROTHY A. CURRAN A PETITION OPPOSING HOME RULE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA We, the undersigned, wish to record our opposition to home rule for the District of Columbia for the following reasons: 1. The unique character of the District of Columbia as the Nation's Capital City, supported in part by Federal funds, requires and must continue to require congressional direction and supervision in major areas of its governmental administration. Proposed legislation, S. 1118, provides for a costly superstructure of mayor and 19 council members, whose official acts could be repealed, modified, or vetoed by either the Congress or the President (title III, sec. 324 (a−2) and (f)), thus making the term "home rule" a misnomer and mere pretense. 2. The present form of government could be a great deal more efficient and Congress could be relieved of much of the time-consuming detail and burden of running the city of Washington if it would delegate more authority to the Commissioners and other appointed officials. This should be tried before any home rule legislation is enacted. 3. Washington has been spared the corrupt political machines which have marred and plagued other large American cities. It is difficult to see what advantages so-called home rule would bring to the taxpaying public that would outweigh the dangers involved, particularly in view of the unique circumstances currently existing in the District of Columbia. Dorothy A. Curran, 2817 McKinley Place NW. Harold W. Curran (native Washingtonian), 2817 McKinley Place NW. Elizabeth K. Stanf, 6912 Greenvale Street NW. Ernestine R. Walker, 3850 Tunlaw Road NW. Lucia W. White, 4731 Ellicott Street NW. Roberta H. Lentz, 4636 Brandywine Street NW. Geraldine A. Willicutt, 6934 33d Street NW. Henriette M. Alexander, 3233 Stephenson Place NW. A. W. Alexander, 3233 Stephenson Place NW. Louis F. Zaruba, 2820 McKinley Place NW. Ann F. Zaruba, 2820 McKinley Place NW. Jean A. Bodholdt, 5460 31st Street NW. D. Franklin Hody, 4000 15th NW. Ase W. Myers, 2851 Arizona Terrace NW. Margaret D. Locke, 3901 Connecticut Avenue NW. Lillian B. Jones, 4801 Connecticut Avenue NW. |