711.4 N2133P cop. 3
Ex Libris
LACHLAN F. BLAIR FAICP
Urbana, Illinois 1999
^^N 2 3 2m^
NOTICE: Return or renew all Library Materials! The Minimum Fee for each Lost Book is $50.00.
The person charging this material is responsible for its return to the library from which it was withdrawn on or before the Latest Date stamped below.
Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons for discipli- nary action and may result in dismissal from the University. To renew call Telephone Center, 333-8400
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
FIRS'
L161— O-1096
OB
ILLINOIS UBRARYi
AT URBANA•CHAMPA'G^f
rpi ft
Published by the American Society of Planning Officials 1313 East 60th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637
September 1967
CA
P
PR E F A C E
Annual meetings of an organization serve as institutional birthday celebrations, anniversaries of that auspicious day when the society or institute, club or association first saw life. This facsimile edition of the proceedings of the first national city planning conference has been prepared by the American Society of Planning Officials as a sort of birthday present for the American Institute of Planners on the occasion of the Institute's 50th birthday anniversarv, celebrated in Washington in 1967.
While the Institute itself was organized, "born," in Kansas City, the profession in the United States can probably be said to have been ' ' conceived ' ' in Washington at this first conference. Therefore, it seems fitting to reproduce this rare document and make it available for those who have inherited the mantle of the pioneering group. This also seems to be an appropriate moment to record a capsule history of the national planning conferences.
The first national city planning conference was held in Washington, May 21 and 22, 1909. Apparently the principal group promoting it was the Committee on Congestion of Population in New York, of which Benjamin C. Marsh was executive secretary and the senior Henry Morgenthau chairman.
About 10 days after the conference, Mr. Marsh testified before the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia, talking about the prob- lems of housing and planning in the capital city. The Government Printing Office in 1910 published a transcript of the hearing, plus data submitted by Mr. Marsh, plus the proceedings of the first national con- ference, as Senate Document No. 422, 61st Congress, Second Session.
In a statement in the proceedings of the second national conference on city planning held the following year, it would seem that there were 43 persons at the 1909 meeting. The 1910 report also stated that ' ' The President [William Howard Taft] showed his interest by consenting to make the opening address." If the President actually did make the opening address, it was not recorded in the proceedings of this first conference.
As a result of the first conference and the obvious interest in plan- ning, the group organized itself as the National Conference on City Planning. The conception of planning as a separate profession was not apparent in the 1909 meeting. At several points in the discussion of organization matters, it was clear that the delegates were not think- ing about forming an organization that would treat city planning as a new profession. The National Conference on City Planning was set up merely as a committee that would arrange the details of an "annual conference in which all organizations contributing to the development of the science of city planning might have a part. ' '
The first chairman of the NCCP executive committee, elected at the Washington meeting, was Frederick L. Ford, city engineer of Hart- ford, Connecticut.
Groups endorsing the NCCP and the idea of annual meetings were the Committee on Congestion of Population in New York, American Institute of Architects, American Society of Landscape Architects, League of American Municipalities, American Civic Association, and the National Conference of Charities and Corrections.
The second conference in Rochester, New York, in 1910, was under the sponsorship of the newly organized National Conference on City Planning, called at the invitation of Charles Mulford Robinson, one of the pioneers of city planning in this country.
The NCCP continued to sponsor the annual meetings from 1910 through 1917. In the proceedings of the 1917 meeting, held In Kansas City, the following brief report appears:
At the business meeting of the Ninth Conference, held on May 9, 1917, after considerable discussion of the need for advancing the science and art of city planning, it was voted to establish the American City Planning Institute. All the present members of the City Planning Conference were made members of the Institute, the government of which ivas entrusted to a board of twenty-one members.
There is to be no change in the conduct of the annual Conferences on City Planning, ivhich will be in charge of the governing board of the Institute and will be held at the same time as its annual meeting. Most of the sessions will be joint sessions with those of the Institute. There will be practically no change in the character of the Conference, except such as will come from a closer alliance with a technically trained group of men.
In addition to the annual meetings of the Institute there wUl be other meetings arranged during the year for the working out of the technical details of city planning problems.
The American City Planning Institute arranged for and sponsored the National City Planning Conference in 1918 and 1919. However, at the end of the Buffalo meeting in 1919, the National Conference on City Planning was reestablished as a separate organization. The NCCP thereafter sponsored the annual meetings, beginning with the 12th conference in Cincinnati in 1920 and ending with the 26th conference in St. Louis in 1934.
By 1935 other organizations promoting planning had been formed and were interested in national meetings on the subject. One of these was the American Civic Association, which had been set up in St. Louis in 1904 as a merger of the American Park and Outdoor Art Association (founded in Louisville in 1897) and the American League for Civic Improvement (founded in Springfield, Ohio, in 1900). Although the ACA had preceded the NCCP, it was not actually incorporated until 1928. The association issued its first yearbook, The American Civic Annual, in 1929.
In 1934 the American Society of Planning Officials was organized as one of the group of associations in the Chicago area devoted to the advancement of public administration — the associations that later formed the "1313" group.
As a result of the rapidly increasing interest in planning, spurred to a great extent by the depression and federal efforts to prime the pump with public works, the 27th conference on planning, held in Cincinnati, was jointly sponsored by four organizations: American City Planning Institute, American Civic Association, American Society of Planning Officials, and National Conference on City Planning. At this 1935 con- gress, the American Civic Association and the National Conference on City Planning were merged to form the American Planning and Civic Association.
From 1936 to 1942 there was joint sponsorship of the national con- ferences on planning. During this time, ASPO and APCA were among the sponsors, as was the American City Planning Institute, which changed its name in 1939 to the American Institute of Planners. Another was the National Economic and Social Planning Association which joined with the others in 1937, 1939, and 1940 and, after chang- ing its name to National Planning Association, continued as a sponsor in 1941 and 1942.
After the 34th meeting in Indianapolis in 1942, the several organi- zations split up and held separate meetings.
The general form of the National Conference on Planning has been continued since 1942 by the American Society of Planning Officials at its annual National Planning Conference. The recently published Planning 1967, the report of the National Planning Conference held in Houston in the spring of 1967, thus becomes the 58th volume in the series. In 1962 the American Society of Planning Officials published a cumulative index to the proceedings from 1909 to 1961 inclusive, the index compiled by Mary Vance, Librarian of the Department of City Planning and Landscape Architecture, University of Illinois.
The actual proceedings of this first conference on planning take up only about half of the Senate document in which they appear, the first half being devoted to the hearing before the Committee on the District of Columbia. However, the testimony at the hearing is just as inter- esting and just as pertinent to the history of planning as the speeches that were made in the Masonic Temple and in the Board Room of the District Building. We have, therefore, reproduced the entire Senate document.
This is an interesting publication to read — interesting, but perhaps a little discouraging. The problems that were discussed in 1909 are, in too large measure, the same problems that we discuss todaj^ : ugly over- head wires, advertising signs, congestion in housing and cong:estion in streets, inadequate parks and playgrounds, migration from rural areas to the cities, and so on. Perhaps we should see in this a challenge — a challenge to the profession to do much better in the next 50 years than we have done in the last 50 years.
Dennis 0' Harrow Chicago, Illinois 21 August, 1967
6l8T Congress \ ctt^j^tv /Document
2d Session / sii/.iA-i.- ^ No. 422
CITY PLAIN NI.NG
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COM^IITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES SENATE
ON THE
SUBJECT OF CITY PLANNING
^
Reported by Mr. Smoot, from the Committee on Printing March 11, 1910.— Ordered to be printed
WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
1910
COlVriVTITTKE.
Hon. Jacob H. Galllnqer, New Hampshire, Chairman. Hon. William P. DaLiNGHAM, Vermont. Hon. William O. Bradley, Kentucky.
Hon. Nathan B. Scott, West Virginia. Hon. Thomas S. Martin, Virginia.
Hon. Robert J. Gamble, South Dakota. Hon. Tuomas H. Paynter, Kentucky.
Hon. Elmer J. Burkett, Nebraska. Hon. Joseph F. Johnston, Alabama.
Hon. Thomas H. Carter, Montana. Hon. John Walter Smith, Maryland.
Hon. Morgan Q. Bulkeley, Connecticut. Hon. Duncan U. Fletcher, Florida.
John H. Walker, WerA;.
CONTENTS
Page.
Statement of Mr. Benjamin Clarke Marsh 5
Statement of Allan D. Albert, jr., of Washington, D. C 20
List of data as part of the presentation of the need for City Planning in Wash- ington 22
Prices paid for land for municipal and federal purposes in the District of Colum- bia compared with the assessed valuation 26
Certain billg and briefs for improving the present methods of assessing land,
taxing land, and acquiring land for public purposes 28
Methods of taxation of land and municipal land ownership in continental
countries 41
Building regulations as to height and proportion of site that may be covered
in foreign and American states and cities 48
General statement regarding Wa^hiiigton 54
National Conference on City Planning, Washington, D. C, May 21 and 22, 1909.
Programme 57
Letter from Hon. James Bryce, British Ambassador to the United States, read at the opening Conference of the First National Conference on City Planning,
in Washington 58
Address by Henry Morgenthau on City Planning 59
Address by Benjamin C. Marsh on City Planning ^ 61
Address by Gen. George M. Sternberg, U. S. Army, on Housing Conditions in
Washington 62
The Scope and Results of Citv Planning in Europe. Mr. Frederic Law Olmsted. 63
The Scope of City Planning m the United States. Mr. Frederic L. Ford 70
What Is Needed in American City Planning? Mr. John Nolen 74
Some of the Needs of City Planning in America. Mr. Robert Anderson Pope. . . 75
Practical Planning of Residential Streets. Mr. George B. Ford 79
Discussion by Andrew Wright Crawford of the papers of Mr. Olmsted and Mr.
Ford 81
Statement Regarding City Planning in Cleveland. Mr. Munson A. Havens 82
Brief account of the city planning improvements of Boston. Mr. Arthur A.
Shurtleff 85
What Has Been Accomplished in City Planning in Philadelphia. Mr. Andrew
Wright Crawford 86
Permanent City Plan Commission. Mr. J. Q. Adams 88
City Planning in Denver and Los Angeles. Mr. Charles Mulford Robinson 89
Remarks by Hon. Francis G. Newlands 91
City Planning in Pittsburg. Mr. Allen T. Bums 92
What Has Been Accomplished in City Planning in Baltimore City. Mr. Josiah
Pennington, Secretary of the Municipal Arte Society of Baltimore 92
Remarks by Hon. Julius Kahn 96
Report on City Planning in Chicago. Mr. George E. Hooker 96
Statement regarding City Planning in St. Louis 98
City Planning in Milwaukee. Mr. Richard B. Watrous 99
City Planning in Detroit. Mr. Frank C. Baldwin 100
Address by Hon. Joseph G. Cannon, Speaker of the House of Representatives. . 100
Address by Commissioner Macfarland 101
Address by Mrs. V. G. Simkhovitch 101
Economic Aspects of City Planning. Mr. Benjamin C. Marsh 104
Address on the "Boston 1915 " Movement. Mr. J. Randolph Coolidge 105
3
CITY PLANNING.
Committee on the District of Columbia,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C, Tuesday, June 1, 1909.
The committee met at 9.30 o'clock a. m.
Present: Senators Gallinger (chairman), Dillingham, Scott, Gam- ble, Burkett, Bulkeley, and Bradley.
Present, also, Mr. Benjamin Clarke Marsh, of New York City; Mr. AUan D. Albert, jr., of Washington, D. C; Dr. George M. Kober, of Washington, D. C.; and Mr. Walter S. Ufford, of Washington, D. C.
The Chaiiiman. As the committee is doubtless aware, there has been for some time at the Hotel Raleigh in this city an exhibition of diagrams and maps illustrative of the city-planning idea which is attracting much attention throughout the country. The exhibit has been in charge of Mr. Benjamin Clarke Marsh, executive secretary of the committee on congestion of population in New York City, and Mr. Allan D. Albert, jr., representing the chamber of commerce. Many hundreds of our citizens have availed themselves of the privi- lege of examining and studying the plans. With a view to bringing the matter directly to the attention of this committee, Mr. Marsh was invited to appear here this morning and briefly call attention to what he deems it desirable to have done in the District of Columbia, look- ing to its future needs and adornment. As our time is very limited, Mr. Marsh will at once proceed to his task.
STATEMENT OF MR. BENJAMIN CLARKE MARSH, OF NEW
YORK CITY, N. Y.
Mr. Marsh. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, in the first place I should like to emphasize chiefly the economic aspects of this problem, if I may. I understand that you are very vitally interested in those aspects, and I shall divide my remarks into two parts. First, I want to deal with some suggestions as to the legislation needed for conditions in the present District of Columbia. Then I wish to make a few suggestions with reference to the area which apparently will have to be incorporated in the District of Columbia, at least ultimately.
Because the problem seems so largely economic, I want to admit at the start that I do not believe any suggestions that I can niake, or even the city-planning of foreign cities based upon an economic point of view, will solve the wrong of insufficient wages. So that I wish, in opening, to call attention to the fact that as an essential for getting better living conditions here in Washington, or even a normal standard
6
6 CITY PLANNING.
of living — I will not dwell long upon that point — it will be necessary to raise the rate of wages.
I have taken some statistics from the report of the President's Homes Commission, showing that hundreds of the federal employees and of the emi)loyees of the District of Columbia — married men — are getting under S720 a year, and many of them under $600 a year. The President's Homes Commission suggests that a wage of $700 a year will mean a fierce struggle for existence.
Senator Scott. Will you allow me to interrupt you just there, Mr. Marsh? Are you not starting off with an extravagant idea? There are plenty of people in my home city that live comfortal)ly on $400 or $500 a year.
Mr. Marsh. I am simply quoting their figures, Mr. Senator.
The chamber of commerce has also made an investigation as to the standard of living, and I am informed that they put the figure a good deal liiglier. Of course you appreciate that for the suggestions as to conditions in Washington I am largely dependent upon the information I have gotten from those who are studying the conditions here, and I simply present the facts as coming from them.
The Chairman. While I dislike to interrupt you and to take a moment of your time, I feel constrained to inquire now if you are referring to the departmental force or only to the city employees?
Mr. Marsh. Both the departmental force and the city employees. The men on the streets get $9 a week, the commissioners inform me.
The Chairman. I wanted to have that clear.
Mr. Marsh. And the employees of the departments of Agricul- ture, Treasury, Interior, Commerce and- Labor, War, Navy, Post- Office, and State, and the Interstate Commerce Commission, are being paid, many of them, less than $600 a year.
Then, to come down directly to the aspect of city planning and the suggestions which I desire to make along tlie lines of securing more normal living and housing conditions, the point upon which there seems to be the most distinction between the foreign system and our American system is that in foreign cities they do not legislate uni- fonnly for the entire city. I have recently visited (briefly, to be sure, but I had letters of introduction, to the mayors and city officials) Frankfort, Cologne, Diisseldorf, Munich, Berlin, and several English cities, as well as several in Switzerland and Austria. There they impose greater restrictions both as to height of buildings and the pro- portion of the site that may be covered with buihhngs in the outer parts of the city where huul is less valuable than in the most con- gested parts.
You know, of course, that in all of our American cities we have a uniform tenement-house law. That huv is, approximately, that 90 per cent of a corner site may be covered, and that 75 per cent or 70 per cent or occasionafly 65 per cent of an interior site may be cov- ered. In making suggestions for Washington I would .suggest that it is most unfortunate that you permit more of an interior lot to be covered tlian is the case elsewhere. I learned from the report of the commissioners' committee in charge of the revision of the building code that you permit here 75 per cent of an interior lot to be covered, as against'70 per cent even in New York — and we are tiying to reduce that to 60 per cent or even 50 per cent in parts of New York. I believe that 66 § per cent is about as much as sliould be covered in the
CITY PLANNING. 7
built-up part of Washington from the information I have secured,
with the present land values.
Then, too, it is preeminently important that some further restric- tion should be made in the outlying districts, if it be constitutional. I have the decision of the Supreme Court — delivered, I believe, on the 19th of the past month — declaring that the Boston restrictions creating these various zones are constitutional. That seems to indi- cate that the court regards as constitutional a differentiation in the treatment of various districts of a city.
Senator Dillingham. Wliat case is that ?
Mr. Marsh. I will send jou two or three copies of the report, if I may. It was a case involving the Boston restrictions.
Then, too, I would make this suggestion: I have spent several hours looking over your assessment books, and I find that there are vast areas here where land is assessed at less than 1 cent a square foot. I should say, roughly, that perhaps a fifth of it is assessed at 10 cents a square foot. In the case of cheap land of this kind, it seems to me that regulations permitting only detached buildings, or at least low cottages to cover only 50 or 60 per cent of the site, are entirely feasible.
That, in essence, is the zone scheme of the city planning of the foreign cities. In Vienna, for instance, they have a five-story district, a four-story district, a three-story district, and a two-story district. In Cologne, although in the most congested area they permit building upon 80 per cent of a corner lot and 75 per cent of an interior lot, they cut the per cent to be covered down to only 40 per cent of the site in the outskirts, where land is fairly cheap.
Then I am informed from talking with some of the officials of the District that you have a law requiring that all new streets shall be at least 90 feet wide. That, again, is not compatible with the methods adopted abroad in zoning a city, because they have various widths of streets, and adapt the width to the neighborhood. Even if you have a 90-foot street, if you have parking on both sides, that reduces the enormous expense of putting in the street, particularly if it is asphalted — which does not seem necessary in outlying sections of the District — and reduces the expense of maintenance and upkeep. Then, of course, if — as is specifically stated in some of the foreign building codes — at any future time the District changes in such a way that they need to erect higher buildings and want to have mder streets, they can at comparatively small expense secure the parking. In that way you have the street at small expense and avoid the large initial expense which would fall so heavily on the class of people who would live in these small houses.
Another suggestion is that the size of the blocks should be changed so that the lots may have a more nearly uniform depth. Most stu- dents of city planning agree that approximately 100 feet is a fairly good depth for a lot. If you get it much longer, you are apt to introduce the rear building, which is not now regarded as sanitary. Certain sections of the city may have to be replatted in relation to the zone scheme, the heights of buildings, and the width of streets to make this depth of lot.
I am going over these points rather hurriedly, but I want to cover the outlines, and possibly there will be questions later.
I am also informed that extremely flimsy flats are being erected here which are practically nonfireproof, and that several of the citi-
8 CITY PLANNING.
zens have appeared before the District Commissioners to urge that there be more stringent regulations as to fireproofing these fiats. I think the suggestion has also been made that any flat over three sto- ries in height should have an elevator. Certainly it is necessary that the erection of these flimsy flats should be prohibited. I have heard criticisms of them all around. There should be more safeguarding of the portion of the population which has to live in flats. Of course that does not mean so much the working population, because I under- stand the rents of these flats run from $25 up to $45 or even $50 a month.
We have had quite a discussion in New York as to the cubage of the volume of buildings. Of course, ours is preeminently the sky- scraper city. Chicago is a close second in this respect, and Pitts- burg now has a 22-story building. On the ground of equity it is sug- gested that there should be a fixed relation between the area of the site and the volume of the building. I do not refer now to tenements, but to office buildings, etc. That is, it is contended that there should be a fixed relation between the area of the site and the number of cubic feet in the building, which means the proportion of the rentable floor space. Some of your boulevards or avenues in Washington are very broad, and as there is ample space downtown, there is no need for the erection of such huge sky-scrapers proportioned to the width of the avenues as will undoubtedly come within the next few years, unless they are prohibited now. For instance, we find difficulty in getting a restriction in New York to prevent the erection of a forty- story building even above Twenty-third street, on the ground that they have them downtown.
The Chairman. But we have already regulated that matter by law in Washington.
Mr. Marsh. In reference to the width of the street?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Marsh. But some of your streets are 150 feet wide, are they not?
The Chairman. Some of them are 160 feet wide.
Mr. Marsh. And that gives, of course, a pretty high building, does it not, Mr. Chairman ? But I do not press that point.
A further point is the need for hastening the conversion of these alleys into minor streets. Of course that matter has been brought before you by various commissions and bodies in the District.
The Chairman. We now have a law on the subject.
Mr. Marsh. Yes. So that this reform is gradually going ahead, though the formation of such alleys in new sections should be pro- hibited; but I understand that there is still a tendency to convert stables and other buildings now standing in these alleys into houses. In fact, I have been through some of them, and have had them pointed out. Mr. Weller and others have been good enough to take me around within the past year into a lot of these alleys, and they have shown me the condition of the houses. Of course that is practically the same evil. If you convert into a house an alley Duilding that is not good enough for a stable, you simply perpetuate the evil of the alley.
Then, I wish to take up another subject which we have not studied so much in America, in relation to city planning, but which it seems to me is absolutely fundamental. That is the question of assessment
OITY PLANNING. 9
of land and taxation. I think I may be permitted to state that I am not a single-taxer. I have for a good many j^ears studied the works of experts on taxation as far as they were avaihible. But I have been asked by various people here — by labor representatives, by men who own large buildings and small homes, and by others — to suggest the inequality in the present assessment of land values. And I must say that in going over in the last few days something like 300 pages of the assessments of land values I have been surprised to see the extremely low assessments in various sections of the city. I do not need to quote from the speech which Congressman Morrell, of Phila- delphia, made, showing where in one case property was assessed at $96 and a jury awarded the amount of $2,690.65 for it.
The Chairman. That is not unusual in this District, Mr. Marsh.
Mr. ]\L\RSH. It is not unusual ?
The Chairman. No, sir. You know the basis upon which the assessment is supposed to be made.
Mr. Marsh. Two-thirds of the real value?
The Chairman. Sixty-five per cent.
Mr. Marsh. I was informed that it was approximately two-thirds of the real value.
The Chairman. The same inequality exists here that exists the world over. Perhaps it is carried to a larger extent here than almost anywhere else, especially if the government or the District of Columbia wants to purchase property. Then we get beautifully fleeced.
Mr. Marsh. Of course I appreciate, gentlemen, that you are inter- ested in not having the District or the General Government pay exorbitant prices for property. In my judgment — and I have examined nearly every city plan in this country — the present method is an extremely good one for rewarding land speculation; and judg- ing by the prices that have been paid here recently for property, it is very effective. I think this is a matter which is directly pertinent to city planning, because, if I am informed correctly — and this is a subject which will require further study — the sites of large office buildings, which do certainly yield a fair return, are assessed at a much lower rate than the sites of the homes of men of moderate incomes. If that is true, there is a great injustice there.
The Chairman. That is done everywhere, is it not ?
Mr. Marsh. I think New York has come up very markedly to a more equitable assessment. In fact, land in Manhattan is assessed more nearly at par to-day, or was within two years, than that in any of the other Doroughs. The residents there also pay more nearly their share of the expenses of the city government. But I would sug- gest a system of progressive taxation upon increases in land values or land assessments, since the land assessment is supposed to conform to the actual land value where the law requires it to be done.
The Chairman. Under our law I think the assessment is made once in three years. Is not that right, Mr. Albert ?
Mr. Albert. That is right, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. It is made once in three years, but I think it ought to be done annually.
Mr. Marsh. Of course we assess once a year in New York, and separate as you do the land and improvement assessment values. But I was told by a prominent real estate man, and I got similar in-
10 CITY PLANNING.
formation from several others yesterday, that in certain sections of the city to which he referred and the site of a building in the neigh- borhood of Fifteenth and New York avenue land had jumped within four years from twenty to forty dollars a square foot, and the assess- ment does not seem to show a simihir increase. Of course a doubling of the value of land in four years enables a man, without any confiscation or injustice, to pay a larger proportion of that increase than where the land of a workingman, for instance, increases only 2 per cent or 1 per cent a year.
This system of progressive taxation is actually carried out in the diagram, which I think some of you gentlemen examined, showing the system of taxation in Frankfort-on-the-Main on this basis : There is, first, a uniform tax upon land. Then, at the time of sale, if twenty years have elapsed since the sale of unimproved land, if it has in- creased in value from 15 to 20 per cent, an additional 2 per cent tax is collected; and there is an additional 1 per cent tax for every 5 per cent of increase up to a total of 25 per cent of total increase above the exer-ption or ordinary rate. That, of course, is a very fair method of payment according to ability.
I am informed that if your property in Washington, for instance, were assessed at full value, and this is the result of a careful estimate, it would probably increase by from nearly 30 to 33 per cent the in- come from taxation in the District of Columbia. This, again, I can not give precise figures for, but I am so informed by a very careful student.
In this connection, therefore, in order that you may really know the value of land for assessment, I suggest (because you must have money for these public improvements) that you enact such a law as was introduced at the last session of the legislature in New York, providing that the actual price paid for land and for improvements should be recorded on the deed. Mr. Richards, your assessor, told me Saturday that less than one-tenth of 1 per cent of all the deeds recorded give the actual price. It is "one cloUar" or "five dollars," "and other valuable considerations" — wdiich, of course, as was said by Mr. Purdy, our president of the Board of Taxes and Assessments in New York, makes it very diOicult for the assessor, even if he be most conscientious, to put the actual value upon the land in assessing it. Then, leaving the question of taxation, there is the question of the methods of securing homes for workin^men within their incomes. I admit that that is an extremely difficult problem. It is very easy to say: "Let the Government build houses for these working peo])le." But I have been carefully through the districts in Liverpool where the Government has housed the working people; and was informed the average wage of the workingmen, many of them longshoremen, who live in these houses, is 16 shillings a week, whereas the minimum wage they ought to have is 25 to 28 shillings a week. Apparently one of the net results of having the Government step in and pay the rent is to give a subsidy to the land exploiter and a subsidy to the manufacturer, who say: "Very well; if you can get good housing for half what it is worth, and the Government 'pays the freight, we will pay you that much lower wages."
The Chairman. You can dismiss the idea, Mr. Marsh, of the Gov- ernment going into that in this city.
CITY PLANNING. 11
Mr. Marsh. I am not advocating it. There are three alternatives, it seems to me, for providing homes for workingmen here, and with all three must go restrictions upon building. I wish you would criti- cize these alternatives and suggest any others that occur to you :
First, we should have a fairer and somewhat higher rate of wages all around. This, I recognize, is a very difficult thing to secure.
Senator Scott. At the present time?
Mr, Marsh. At the present time; yes.
The second alternative is that private charity should step in and provide these houses at a noncommercial profit.
The Chairman. Of course, you realize that neither this committee nor Congress can regulate the matter of wages paid to men in private employment.
Mr. Marsh. Oh, certainly; certainly. Of course, all you can do is
The Chairman. We can recommend.
Mr. Marsh. You can recommend. All you can do is to deal with your own employees. As a matter of fact, however, I believe that the paying of a sUghtly higher rate of wages to the employees of the District of Columbia and of the Federal Government would tend to raise the general level. It would have that tendency. I appreciate, of course, that there is the other economic problem that is very important.
Senator Scott. Do you not think that the government of the District of Columbia and the Federal Government pay a higher rate of wages here for the number of hours worked than is paid in any other place on the face of the globe ?
Mr. Marsh. I should have to examine the matter a little more carefully to be able to answer that question. We are told in New York that we do that. I do not know. I know about what wages you pay; and some of them are very low. I should say, however, that a dollar and a half a day, which Commissioner Macfarland tells me is the pay of the men in the street-cleaning department, is a decidedly lower rate of wages for that grade of labor, with the com- parative expenses of living, than the New York rate of wage, which is $2 a day.
Then there is the other alternative. You have a house famine here. Out of some 2,600 brick houses erected from 1903 to 1907, there were, according to some statistics I have been given, only 7 which were within the reach of the working people. I refer now only to brick houses. Of course in erecting those houses you have displaced a large number of people, approximately 2,000, I am told, in old houses which were demolished. Where the people who lived in those houses have gone, I do not know. You have a very impor- tant problem to determine — what you will do with them. The fourth possible alternative is to do nothing. That, of course, means that the people come back on charity.
First comes the higher rate of wages; second, the proposition to let private charity pay the difference; third, the suggestion that Congress authorize the District to erect houses for workingmen at rents within their reach. The Sanitary Homes Company can not rent homes to workingmen at any prices which they can afford and pay more than 4 per cent. Of course that is practically a noncom- mercial profit, and they are having difficulty in getting funds. If
12 CITY PLANNING.
they charpjed $10 for their houses instead of S7.50 or $8 they coiild pay 5 per cent and secure the money. Of course it may be said that Congress can not authorize the District of Columbia to loan money for the erection of these houses, and it is a question whether it would be wise if it were permissible.
Another problem lies in the methods of securing land. A bill has been introduced into the legislature of New York which provides for a law which is at present on the statute books in Connecticut, Penn- sylvania, Massachusetts, Ohio, and one other State, a western State. Under such a law, where the Government wants land for a specific purpose, such as the opening of a street, it may condemn twice or three times the area needed for the specific purpose and then resell the balance. That has been successfully carried out in England, and I shall be glad to leava with you the brief as to the constitutionality of the law which is now before the court in Pennsylvania.
Senator Bulkeley. We have not any such law as that in Con- necticut, have we ?
Mr. Marsh. I understood you had in Hartford. Senator Bulkeley. Oh, no.
Mr. Marsh. Mr. Ford, the city engineer, informed me that that was the case.
Senator Bulkeley. No ; we have not any such law. Mr. Marsh. I should like to send down, if I may, the bill to which I referred. At any rate, I had Mr. P'ord's statement that you had such a law, providing that for public purposes an excess of land may be condemned.
Senator Bulkeley. We can condemn land anywhere for public uses, but we have not any such general law. I live there, so I ought to know.
Mr. Marsh. I may be misinformed. It was the city engineer, Mr. Ford, that told me.
Senator Bulkeley. Yes; I know him very well. Mr. Marsh. And, of course, you have a city-planning commission there.
Senator Bulkeley. Yes.
The Chairman. Was the decision a lengthy one ? Mr. Marsh. It is a long brief; it is not a decision. It is the brief in favor of the constitutionality of the law. The question has not yet been finally passed upon by" the court. I will send you the brief. However, a great many things which were formerly unconstitutional are assuming a constitutional aspect nowadays, fortunately for the taxpayer; and this method of condemnation has worked out suc- cessfully in London. For instance, it seems perfectly just to make our improvements at the expense of the taxpayer, simply because the value of adjoining land jumps, making it so much harder for the renter of the land, and, of course, so much better for the owner of the land. And personally I do not see how we are going to carry through our projects for c"ity planning, which involve anywhere from many millions here to a c[uarter of a billion in Chicago, for a few improvements without this principle of excess condemnation.
The Chairman. Mr Marsh, I dislike to interrupt you, because it takes time, but do I' understand you to say that if land was con- demned for a street, say, 90 feet wide, the city government could condeiim 90 feet on each side in addition to that, and sell it and allow
CITY PLANNING. 13
a row of houses to be built upon it, while all the original owner would have would be his back land ?
Mr. Marsh. No; they could resell that land to the original owner if he wanted it and was willing to pay for it. It is a particularly good plan when land is bought cheap. For instance, say it is worth 10 cents a square foot; if you put in a good boulevard it jumps the value of the adjoining land from 10 to 50 cents or $1 a square foot, if it is cheap. Of course, if it is very valuable you can not get that proportion of increase.
The Chairman. In this city we have what we call benefits. The landowner makes a contribution because of the increased value of his land resulting from the opening of the streets. I can not ex- actly describe the system, but in some cases I think we get back all the money that we expend.
Mr. Marsh. From the increase?
The Chairman. From the increased value of the abutting land.
Mr. Marsh. Do you mean the full value ?
Senator Bulkeley. By assessment on the adjoining land?
The Chairman. Yes; precisely. That is our system.
Senator Bulkeley. But you can not, in my State, shut that land off the streets.
The Chairman. No; I should not think so.
Mr. Marsh. But what effect does that have, if a man pays it back ? If the land is occupied by a wealthy individual, it is all right. But suppose, on the other hand, it is occupied by people of small incomes, such as those of the vast majority of oiu- population ? If the cutting through of a street be delayed until the land is pretty valuable, if they pay for it, it means that they have to pay in perpetuity a very large proportion of their income for rent, and much of that rent on land. That is one way it works out.
The Chairman. To a very large extent here, especially in the sub- urban districts, we require the landowners to contribute the land for the streets, which they do very cheerfully in a great many cases.
Mr. Marsh. In any event, is not the result an enormous contribu- tion from the community to the owner of the land ? For instance, a man in New York advocated the putting in of a subway at an expense to him of S500 per lot. The same principle obtains there of assessing the benefit upon the property benefited. This advocate of this assess- ment of the cost of betterment upon the property Improved said that within two or three years it would jump from S5,000 to $10,000 per lot.
The Chairman. Doubtless in any scheme that was ever devised here we are helping out the landowner. He is getting very large benefits from the opening of our suburban sections. There is no doubt about that.
Senator Bulkeley. Is he not compensated by increased values just the same ? He is disposing^ of his property all the while.
The Chairman. Certainly. That is my suggestion — he is getting large profits out of it.
Mr. Marsh. Do I understand, then, if 1 may ask a question just here, that you do not contemplate that the District will have to pay out any money for these various plans suggested by the parks com- mission— I mean, for the acquisition of land for these parks ?
The Chairman. Oh, yes; unquestionably so if it is for parks and for unusual roadways. But I am speaking now, in a general way, about opening streets in our suburban districts.
14 CITY PLANNING.
Senator Dillingham. I think that matter can be made perfectly clear. Our courts recognize the principle that no private property may be taken arbitrarily by the Government except purely for public purposes; that they can not take it on speculation, with a view to selUng it. They may take it for public purposes, paying the actual value of the property to the owner of it.
Senator Scott. Under condemnation proceedings ?
Senator Dillingham. Yes. But when we open a street, and have made partial recompense in that way, we take into consideration the benefit that accrues to the landowner. We find out just what his damage has been, and that is what we pay for.
The Chairman. Certainly.
Mr. Marsh. On the other hand, I believe Washington will be an exception to the rule if it is not true that by so doing the community virtually gives vast fortunes to the landowners. Of course, that is a matter that you gentlemen have your own judgment about; but I believe the sums at present going to the landowners in this way belong in part to the community. This system of excess condemnation pro- vides that they shall be returned.
On the other hand, there is another method of securing land which is very general abroad. In fact, there is no city which has had city planning which has not adopted it. That is the early purchase of land. I am sure you have all been impressed with the importance of that. Central Park is an illustration of it; and there are ample illustrations given in the speeches which have been made before your own committee of the value of acquiring land early, while it is fairly cheap. I suggest this principle of excess condenmation in connec- tion with the matter of buying land while it is cheap.
You are going to need vast areas of land. I am told that certain individuals have offered to sell tracts of 400 acres at once to the community, at reasonable prices from their point of view, for parks. Several such suggestions have been made for extending the present system of parks. I have not been able to secure an estimate of what it is going to cost; but if it be ten millions, and that sum could be saved by excess condemnation in the early condemnation of land, of course it would be an appreciable item in the annual budget of the District of Columbia.
Street railways are very important; particularly in a city plan should they be adjusted to the demands of the community. Of course you have in mind the general system of lines of the District. It seemed to me that they were very unfortunate in not providing at present, from what I am told as to the location of the working people, rapid and direct communication, with universal transfers (which seem to be essential) to all of the centers, for the clerks and the laborers who have to live, if they are going to have ample space, away from the congested part of the city.
The Chairman. Have you investigated that matter?
Mr. Marsh. I have not gone into it personally, Mr. Chairman; no.
The Chairman. I think we have pretty good street cars here.
Mr. Marsh. Have you universal transfers ?
The Chairman. No, sir, we have not; and I do not suppose we can have them. Do you think it would be constitutional ?
Mr. Marsh. I should have to study the question here.
The Chairman. Where do you have universal transfers?
CITY PLANNING. 16
Mr. Marsh. Where are they not fighting for them ?
The Chairman. Fighting — yes.
Mr. Marsh. There are very few places where they have them. They have them, practically, in Boston, of course.
The Chairman. Oh, no — not in Boston.
Mr. Marsh. There are certain lines where they do not have them; but they have, I am told, much more general transfers than you do here. I suggest that as one of the essentials of getting your worldng- man properly housed. Of course, he can not very well spend more than one car fare.
The Chairman. In Boston the workingman pays 5 cents for a ride, while here he pays 4^ cents.
Mr. Marsh. Four and a sixth cents — six tickets for a quarter ?
The Chairman. Yes. So we are doing pretty well for the working man in that respect.
Senator Scott. I think the transfer system in this city is the best of any city I know of in the United States.
The Chairman. That is what I think.
Mr. Marsh. In Boston the passenger gets a ride of 18^ miles for his 5 cents.
The Chairman. On a few lines he gets a long ride. Here he gets a little less; but I do not think that has much bearing on the transfer question, Mr. Marsh.
Senator Bulkelet. You can ride pretty nearly all day here if you know how.
Mr. Marsh. Of course the working man wants to ride to his busi- ness; he is not going out for a pleasure ride at 6 o'clock in the morn- ing, and he wants to get there as quickly and as cheaply as he can.
The Chairman. We are trying to solve that problem, as far as rapid transit is concerned. I do not think we are behind in that respect.
Mr. Marsh. If I may make a suggestion as to provision for parks and playgrounds, I should like to do so.
The Chairman. Yes; we shall be glad to hear you briefly on that point.
Mr. Marsh. It seems to me that the plans of the parks commission do not contemplate adequate provision for parks and playgrounds in the districts where the population is now growing up. I have not gone into that matter in detail, but I have looked over the map and ridden pretty carefully all over the city, and I should say that further provision for parks and playgrounds is needed at once. For instance, I was accosted by a youngster the other day with a request to "please buy a ticket to furnish a playground" at such-and-such a school. I understand that a great deal of money is being raised in that way by subscription, because provision is not made by the District.
The water and sewage question I hardly need go into. Of course, a suggestion has been made by the commissioners to the effect that you need another conduit and other methods of filtering the water. But it seems to me that if Washington is going to develop at all as a commercial and manufacturing center
The Chairman. We do not want it developed as a manufacturing center.
Mr. Marsh. Not even across the river?
16 CITY PLANNING.
The Chairman. Perhaps in the suburbs.
Mr. Marsh. The reason I suggest that is that a great many cities, as you know, have found that as they had made no provision for factories, the factories have dumped themselves in unfortunate places. I have read carefully the report of the harbor commission on the matter of docks. It seems to me their suggestions are very good, and that you can get certain types of factories; and you can determine now that they shall be not only economically, but aesthetic- ally arranged along the river front.
The Chairman. Excuse me, Mr. Marsh; I do not want to be mis- understood. I do not mean to say that either this committee or Congress would object to the establishment of manufacturing con- cerns outside of the residential portion of the city.
Mr. Marsh. Oh, no; of course not. That is one of the features I wanted to dwell upon for a moment — that in the foreign cities they have distinctly factory districts, in which alone factories may be established. If you will enforce that principle here you will do a great service to the country, I am sure.
The Chairman. Yes; I think you are right about that.
Mr. Marsh. The reclamation of the Anacostia fiats and the exten- sion of Rock Creek Park have also been suggested, and if health can be improved by such reclamation this ought to be effected at once.
Then, there is the question of the incorporation of adjacent areas. I will read in half a minute some of the present areas here. You now have, roughly speaking, 44,800 acres in the District of Columbia. You have in parks and grounds connected with public buildings 5,544 acres. In bridge approaches and docks you have (estimated) 30 acres. You will ultimately need about 17,000 acres for streets, on the basis of what is required in foreign cities, and, say, 1,000 acres for other buildings — pubUc buildings, etc. That will leave only about 23,000 acres for private buildings. If you have a population of a million in a hundred years, which I believe you all expect, it seems to me that within this time you will need, even possibly within fifty years, a good deal more area. I would therefore urge very strongly the recession of the area which was ceded to or taken by Virginia, and probably other areas, in order that you may at once put into effect there the restrictions of which I have spoken.
Here, again, I speak from the experience of foreign cities. Every one of these great foreign cities which has adopted city planning has added large areas to itself. Dusseldori has about tlie population of Washington, and it added, in 1907, an area of about 9 square miles. Frankfort plans, within two years, to double its area and to restrict the additions. Colome plans the same. Berlin now has a plan to add 478,000 acres with a population of a million and a half, to divide it into districts, to determine its development, and to restrict vast areas. They have come to the conclusion that the only way in which they can do that is by getting the land early, while it is cheap, and while restrictions will not confiscate property rio;hts. That, of course, is the great difTiculty with our present suggestions for restric- tions in most places.
The Chairman. I want to ask you, right there, what is their method of acquiring that additional land 'if They do not purchase it outright, do they?
CITY PLANNING. 17
Mr. Marsh. No. There are about 30 cities concerned in the Berlin plan, which takes in Spandau and Charlottenberg — cities with a population of over 100,000 people. They have a committee of representatives from all of these cities, and they are discussing the best method of incorporation with Berlin.
The Chairman. It is simply a consolidation of outlying territory with the city proper?
Mr. Marsh. It is practically a consolidation; yes.
The Chairman. I understand it now.
Mr. Marsh. For instance, the small cities and villages around Frankfort have made a stipulation that they will come in provided they are furnished, within a year or two years after incorporation, with good means of direct transportation to the manufacturing centers. A similar stipulation was made by the cities adjacent to Berlin. On the other hand. New York gives an illustration of exactly the opposite policy. About a decade ago we incorporated the enormous counties of Queens and Kings and Richmond. Queens had then about one person to an acre. They are trying to put up just as bad tenements in Queens County as we have in the lower East Side, claiming that it is unconstitutional to prevent it; and we are trying to change the present law and get restrictions. It is going to be a great task and a great fight to do it, although everyone recognizes that the present tenement-house law is bad. Of course, it was passed subsequent to the incorporation and consolidation of those three boroughs with the county of New York.
The Chairman. There is a difference here as compared with other municipalities, inasmuch as we are a separate district; and if we get additional land, it must be by cession from one of the adjoining States. We could not go out and do as Boston did, for instance, by taking in Newton and adjoining territory, and thus enlarging the area of the city. We could not do that upon our own motion. We would have to get consent, of course — —
Mr. Marsh. From Congress ?
The Chairman. First, from the adjacent States. Either Virginia would have to recede the territory which she once gave us and then took back (I do not know why, nor why we allowed her to), or Mary- land would have to cede an additional portion of her territory, so as to enlarge our boundaries. That is the way I look at it, and I think I am correct about it. Then, Congress would have to accept the territory and make it a part of the District of Columbia.
Mr. Marsh. Yes; I think so.
The Chairman. So that there are some obstacles in the way that it is well to consider.
Mr. Marsh. I suggest it early, because it will take so long to over- come the obstacles, I believe. But I think, now, in view of the fact that the District will doubtless ultimately have a population of a million or a million and a half, and the fact that speculation is going on very rapidly in all the districts that are within anything like reasonable car fare and time distance of the District, that the secur- ing of that area and its restriction would be necessary to get the best living conditions.
In conclusion, I want to make this suggestion (of course my sug- gestions have been very hurried, and my study here has been simply
31972— S. Doc. 422, 61-2 2
18 CITY PLANNING.
a securing of infonnation from a few people and from available records) : But I should like to suggest, formally, that since this sub- ject is of such importance, there might profitably be a joint committee of the Senate and the House District committees to stu<ly the three following problems, which I believe are directly involved in city planning :
First. The methods of assessing property, especially land, in the District of Columbia.
In that connection I would like to call attention to the system in operation in New Zealand, where, when the State or the city want to buy land from a landowner, they find out what his assessment has been for the last two or three years, what taxes he has paid — that is. the rate of the assessment — and pay him the amount that his property has been assessed and 10 per cent extra; and he has to take it. It saves the government quite a bit — the difference between S96 and $690 in certain cases.
The Chairman. It would make us rich here in a very short time. We w^ould not know what to do with our money.
Mr. Marsh. I think the burden of proof as to the injustice of the proposition rests upon the landowner; and he would probably try to find some injustice in it.
The second point is that there should be a study of the net returns upon land and various improvements in the District of Columbia; methods of taxing land and acquiring it for public purposes. I sug- gest that because, in figures which with your permission I should like to submit later, I will make a list of some land holdings here in Wash- ington. I understand one company owns about 1,000 acres. From an investigation made yesterday I have ascertained that seven fam- ilies, estates, and companies in the District of Columbia own about 7 per cent of the total land in the present District, in the county as well as the city of Washington, aside from that used for streets, parks, reservations, public buildings, and so on. That is a decided concen- tration of land ownership in a few hands.
The third suggestion is as to the general study of the results upon wages of governmental action and private charity in erecting houses for workingmen at a noncommercial profit. You naturally have a most serious situation here — which is common, however, to every great city — how to get decent housing for people at prices they can pay. It would be of national importance to have such a study made. Knowing personally, as I do, a great many of the experts in economics, practical business men and housing men, I feel (although I do not speak for them except for their general interest) that they would be glad to help in such an investigation, which would be of the utmost importance to every city in this country, because they are problems with which every city is concerned.
On that point the committee which I represent has authorized me to address a letter to the Census Bureau urging that there be a sort of civic census of this land question and trie housing question, the returns upon land, and the ownership of land by the cities and by a few individuals; because Washington's condition is duplicated in most large American cities. So I would make that suggestion formally, and perhaps it will come up for consideration before your committee, the need for such an investigation, of course to supple- ment the investigations you have already made.
CITY PLANNING. 19
I should say, in closing, that I have not gone into detail at all as to the suggestions of the parks commission. I have examined them carefully, and have examined the plans. But as in every city which is now contemplating city planning, with the exception of securing land where it can be secured much more cheaply now than after two or three years' delay, I believe the questions of housing, of transfers and the location of factories, are more important than the buying of large areas for parks, such as the Rock Creek Park, a park which is beautiful to me from an automobile, but which is utterly worthless to the ordinary workingman except for one day or possibly two days a week, unless there be better means of transit there and unless his hours of work are shorter. So that I should urge postponement of the immediate acquisition of any land here, except wliere it is absolutely necessary, until you have a new system of condemnation or of securing land for public purposes which will reduce the present expense, and until provision be made for the needed parks and play- grountks for the children of the city.
I should like to submit further, Mr. Chairman, some of these ad- dresses made at the National Conference of City Planning, and 1 ask permission to submit two or three verv valuable ones in addition which were not re\ased in time to present here. They are from experts. Mr. Frederick Law Olmsted, jr., for instance, took up, in a valuable paper, the results of three months' travel abroad. I should like to leave these with you as a part of this presentation. I have also compiled translations of a number of foreign building codes, with illu-^trations and maps. I have here, for instance, a report on Frankfort, which was read and corrected by the mayor of Frankfort and is practically an official document as to city plan- ning there. I should like to leave a couple of copies of this com- pilation for each member of the committee, and should be glad to send a copy for each individual member of the Senate Committee on the District, because it is practically a compilation, largel}" original, of some statistics of our American cities.
Those suggestions cover the points which I had in mind, of course being simply a partial summary of some of the suggestions. Perhaps you have some questions.
As to the matter of playgrounds, I should like to add that I went into one of the Neighborhood houses here and was told that there was no park adjacent. In the rear yard there was hardly room enough there for a western farmer to turn three head of cattle loose. They had apparatus, however, for 130 children, and it was the only thing anywhere around. It was Sunday when I was there, and I suppose the children were suffering because they were not allowed to play. I know the evil of it.
The Chairman. Then I infer from what you liave said, Mr. Marsh, that you feel that the District and the Government ought to more liberally appropriate money for public playgrounds and for addi- tional parks in the various parts of the city. Is that your view?
Mr. Marsh. Yes. The minimum standard is that there should be 30 square feet — preferably 70 square feet — of pla.yground for every child within three or four blocks, and that standard is enough to indicate that Washington does not begin to have an adequate supply of parks. It is very much needed at once. I wish such an appropria- tion could be made from a contingent fimd, if there be any, because
20 CITY PLANNING.
I have seen the children playing on the streets here, and while they are not quite as thick as in New York, it is a most pathetic sight to see them; and it is most demoralizing.
If I may be pardoned a personal allusion, I will state that for three years I was secretary of the Philadelphia Society to Protect Children from Cruelty, and I recognized that the apparent neglect of the children was often the neglect of the city to provide playground accommodations. It demoralizes the w^hole family. And I know what it costs, because I had to figure up what it cost, to look after them. So that the playgrounds are a most economical investment.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Marsh.
Doctor Kober, do you or Mr. Albert wish to add a word to what has been said ?
Doctor Kober. I think that Mr. Marsh has really covered the ground so thoroughly that no emphasis need be given to any particular point.
STATEMENT OF ME. ALLAN D. ALBERT, JR., OF WASH- INGTON, D. C.
Mr. Albert. Mr. Chairman, I will take just a moment.
It appears to me that an opportunity presents itself at this par- ticular time along three distinct lines. The first is that action may be taken now to restrict building in outlying sections of the District. The greater part of that property— by which I mean probably 90 per cent — has been bought as low as SI 25 an acre by its present holders. It is being put upon the market at an average of probably 10 cents a foot, making a cost of $3,000 or nearly $4,000 an acre. In case restrictions were to be now imposed by law, the effect upon the present owner w^ould be less onerous than upon subsequent pur- chasers; and it might be possible, by force of some added restrictions at this time, to prevent the further construction of houses in rows out over the hills and in the valleys of the county.
Another point for the attention of the committee, which has very much impressed me as a citizen, is that the means of condemning land for Government uses as so far developed by Congress has uni- formly failed to procure that land at any price which business judg- ment can commend. I have been at great loss to suggest a better means. The valuations of the ground in the four blocks fronting on Pennsylvania avenue between Fourteenth and Fifteenth streets have been uniformly three times the assessment, or more.
In that case the law provided — and it seemed on its face to be an excellent law — that the supreme court of the District of Columbia should create this commission. But the procedure of the court made practically impossible any other result than that which is coming to- pass. The court called to its bar the representatives of the owners of this ground, made nominations to the attorneys speaking for the owners, received amended nominations, so to speak, and then created the commission out of men practically selectea by the owners. As a newspaper, the publication for which I work had been very appre- hensive about the whole proceeding ; and when these three names were announced, though they were the names of gentlemen for whom we have great personal respect, we knew, according to their business habits and tneir known attitude of mind, that the awards must be very high.
CITY PLANNING. 21
You had somewhat the same experience in the purchase of the site for the Senate Office Building.
The Chairman. We did, indeed.
Mr. Albert. The New Zealand plan is probably severe; but I sug- gest that something in between the New Zealand plan and the pro- cedure now reflected in the condemnation of this ground at Fourteenth and Pennsylvania avenue can be had. I wonder if this will not help to reach it : That the members of the board of award shall be chosen by the Government as the Government chooses every other commis- sion or appointees for every other office; that then the source of power in tne premises will not seem to have rested in the owner of the property; and there might be some opportunity thereby to get an assessment which would not postpone by years the further acquisition of ground for needed government uses. To my thinking, every recent purchase by Congress has made future purchases more difficult.
The Chairman. It makes it almost impossible, Mr. Albert, so fax as Congress is concerned.
Mr. Albert. And I can understand that very well.
A third point I would urge upon the committee, in order to get it into the record in this connection, is that no other progressive city in the Union regards an asphaltum street as indispensable to its exist- ence. Asphaltum is used elsewhere along what might be termed the arteries of city travel. But the progress in street building is away from asphaltum, not toward it. All the beautiful new section of St. Louis is a section of macadam boulevards, considerably cheaper in first cost, considerably cheaper in upkeep, than asphalt; and (ioT Washington this is a consideration of first importance) very much cooler in the summer.
I wish changes might be made in the extension of the highways so as to provide that the summer penalty of asphalt shall not oe carried any further than need be.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Marsh. May I say one word with reference to the condem- nation matter? I have not the full details; but we had a bill intro- duced into the legislature of New York last week to provide for a permanent court of condemnation, and I should be very glad to send you a copy of it.
The Chairman. I wish you would, Mr. Marsh. On behalf of the committee, I want to thank you and the other gentlemen for coming here this morning and instructing us.
Mr. Marsh. Thank you very much. We are very glad to come.
The Chairman. Mr. Albert, I have been interested in what you said about the outlying property and the restrictions upon future buildings. I wish you would give that matter a little further atten- tion, with a view to formulating a bill along those Hues. You and the other gentlemen will understand tliat the members of this com- mittee have a multitude of things to attend to. We are not here working simply for the District of Columbia. We have duties to our States that we have to perform, and to the General Government, and you must not expect too much of us. We are doing the best we can, and if you can help us along any of those lines we shall be very glad to accept your assistance.
Mr. Albert. I shall undertake it with a great deal of pleasure.
(The hearing was thereupon announced closed.)
22 city planning.
List of Data Submitted to the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia as Part of the Presentation of the Need for City Planning in Washington.
fBv Mr. Benjamin C. Marsh, Executive Secretary of the Committee on Congestion of Population In New ^ ' York.]
I. Private ownership of land in the District of Columbia and county of Washington.
1. Some large holdings of land in the District of Columbia in 1908.
2. List of some holdings of land in Washington, rate of assessment, and assessed value in 1908.
;i. Assessed valuation of certain properties in Washington in June, 1908. (Figures furnished by the assessor of the District of Columbia.)
4. Typical holdings and assessed valuation in several squares in the District of Columbia in July, 1908.
5. Statement regarding the assessment of land in Washington by the President of a Washington Trust Company.
6. Sizes of holdings of land in Washington in July, 1908.
II. Prices paid for land for municipal and federal purposes in the District of Columbia compared with the assessed valuation.
1. For municipal purposes.
(A) For the new Union railway station,
(B) For public playground sites.
(C) For sites for new police court.
(D) For fire-station sites.
(E) For public-school sites. (Information furnished by the auditor of the District of Columbia.)
2. Assessed value, area, and price paid for certain property for federal buildmg sites in the District of Columbia.
(A) For post-office annex.
(B) For new po.st-office.
(C) For Hall of Records.
(D) For Bureau of Engraving and Printing. (Information furnished by the Supervising Architect of the Treasury Department.)
III. Certain bills and briefs for improving the present methods of assessing land, taxing land, and acquiring land for public purposes.
1. Concurrent resolution for a constitutional amendment in New York in relation to a court of condemnation proceedings.
2. Concurrent resolution for a constitutional amendment in New York in relation to excess condemnation.
3. An act to provide in New York State for the recording in the deed of the actual price paid for land.
4. Brief sur constitutionality of act of June 8, 1907 (P. L., 466, Pennsylvania), providing for condemnation ot property for parks, parkways, and playgrounds, and neighboring property within 200 feet thereof.
5. Re.'^olution amending the charter of the city of Hartford concerning a commission on the city plan.
6. Decision of the Supreme Court. Francis C. Welch, trustee, plaintiff in error, V. George B. Swasey et al. as the board of appeal from the building commissioner at the city of Boston. On error to the supreme judicial court of the State of Massa- chusetts.
IV. Methods of taxation of land, and municipal land ownership in continental countries. .
1. System of taxation on increase in land value in Frankfort on the Main.
2. A bill to provide for a progressive tax upon increases in land values in Saxony of January 26, 1904.
3. A scheme for progressive taxation of land increases in Berlin.
4. Municipal ownership of land in foreign cities.
5. Frankfort on the Main— redistribution of land law.
6. The administration of estates belonging to the city of Dusaeldorf, Germany, and the creation of the land fund.
V. Building regulations as to height and proportion of site, etc., that may be covered in foreign and American States and cities.
1. Prussian building regulations, law of July 2, 1875.
2. Frankfort on the Main, regulations.
3. Diisseldorf regulations.
4. Munich regulations.
CITY PLANNING.
23
5. Cologne regulations.
6. Plan for the enlargement of Berlin. VI. General statement.
1. General expenditures for charity in the District of Columbia. (Information furnished by Mr. George S. Wilson, secretary of the Board of Charities of the District of Columbia.)
2. Study of Washington, showing increase or decrease in population by police pre- cincts. (Information furnished by Commissioner Henry B. F. Macfarland.)
3. Rates of wages paid to the union mechanics of the building trades, Washington, D. C. (Information furnished by W. F. Gilmore, secretary of executive committee.)
1. Private Ownership of Land in the District op Columbia and County op
Washington.
1. some large holdings of land in the district of columbia, july, 1908.
Acreage.
A 224. 88
B 145. 00
C ' 341.63
D 476.33
E 342. 69
F 152. 00
G.! ! 148.00
Total 1, 830. 53
About 7 per cent of all the land, exclusive of parks, governmental reservations,
streets, and exempt land, is owned by seven companies, families, and estates. Over
10 per cent is owned by 17 companies, families, and estates. Present acreage of the District of Columbia, approximately, 44,800 acres.
Acreage of land used for large parks, squares, circles, ground connected Acres.
with public buildings (1902) '. 5, 544. 68
Streets (estimated on basis of per cent of other cities devoted to streets).. . 3, 100. 00
Docks, bridge approaches, school yards, etc. (estimated) 150. 00
Total 8, 794. 68
Maximum area available for buildings, streets, etc., in the District of
Columbia 36, 005. 32
Probable area to be devoted to streets, open spaces, parks, public build- ings, etc 18,000.00
Estimated area available for buildings for residences, offices, stores, etc. . . 18, 005. 32
2. LIST OF SOME HOLDINGS OF L.\ND IN WASHINGTON, RATE OF ASSESSMENT, AND
ASSESSED VALUE IN 1908.
Parcel.
2/1... 2/2... 5/3... 8/1... 11/13. 12/27. 15/3.. 17/1 . . 17/50. 18/2.. 19/1.. 20/1.. 21/9.. 32/10. 56/1.. 58/30. 61/1.. 64/1 . . 77/2..
|
Area. |
Rate per |
Total |
|
acre. |
assessment. |
|
|
Acres. |
||
|
145. 38 |
$70.00 |
JIO, 176. 60 |
|
12.98 |
500.00 |
6,490.00 |
|
75.80 |
400.00 |
30,320.00 |
|
19.70 |
300.00 |
5,910.00 |
|
20.54 |
300.00 |
6, 162. 00 |
|
101.23 |
400.00 |
40, 492. 00 |
|
17.30 |
300.00 |
5,190.00 |
|
15.35 |
600.00 |
9,210.00 |
|
19.91 |
500.00 |
9,955.00 |
|
24.00 |
500.00 |
12,000.00 |
|
20.38 |
500.00 |
10,190.00 |
|
31.07 |
400.00 |
12, 4-28. 00 |
|
68.43 |
1,500.00 |
102,645.00 |
|
15.70 |
1,500.00 |
23,550.00 |
|
35.65 |
1,500.00 |
53,475.00 |
|
103.88 |
1,200.00 |
196,656.00 |
|
104.00 |
300.00 |
31,200.00 |
|
148.00 |
200.00 |
29,600.00 |
|
93.30 |
300.00 |
27,990.00 |
24
CITY PLANNING.
LIST OP SOME HOLDINGS OF LAND IN WASHINGTON, RATE OF ASSESSMENT,
ASSESSED VALUE IN 1908 — Continued.
Parcel.
90/10 91/1. 91/5. 101/1 102/5 130/4 175/1 181/2 18(i/l 200/2 208/1 212/1
Area.
Acres. 53.22 74.51 73.00 45.00 50.93 62.65 67.02 60.26 108. 90 92.80 100.00 121. 41
Rate per acre.
$800.00 800.00 500.00 tiOO.OO 500.00
4, 500. 00 200.00 200.00 75.00 100.00 200.00 300.00
Total assessment.
$42,576.00 59,608.00 30,500.00 27,000.00 25, 405. 00
236, 92.'"). 00 13,404.00 12,052.00 8,167.50 9,280.00 20.000.00 36,423.00
3. ASSESSED VALUATION OP CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN WASHINGTON, D. C, JUNE, 1908,
[Figures furnished by the assessor of the District of Columliia.]
[Property assessed at two-thirds of its supposed real value.]
Square.
Lot No.
Assessed to —
Building.
Square feet.
Rate.
Ground,
Improve- ments.
254 254
253 225
225
322
2530
222
Of 7-W. 40.44 feet.
Sublot29 ,
Sublot26 ,
Sublot22
Of 4-N. 36.20
feet. Of 4-S. 18.80
feet. Of5-N. 25feet, Of5-S.30feet,
Sublot C
Sublot D
Sublot E
Sublot F
155
812
Sublot 2.
Sublot 3... Sublot 4... Sublot 5... Sublot 6.. Sublot 7... Sublot 8.. fSublot 42. iSublot 43. Sublot 41.
Of 1-N. 10 feet
14th street.
Of 1-3.04 14th
St.
Of 1-E. 43.08 avenue.
Of2-E. 18 feet.
Of 2-18 feet x E. 18 feet.
Of 2-W. 20.08 feet.
Of 3-56.08 ave- nue.
Of 15-E. 27.21 feet.
Of 15-W. 35.87 feet.
Frank A. Munsey. Henry Willard
Times. Post..
Geo. H. Higbee
Jos. J. Darlington and Edw. J. Stellwagen, Tr. Virginia Hotel Co.
Belie L.W. Willard
Martin F. Morris and others.
do
Westorv . .
Willard Hotel.
Union Tr
Raleigh Hotel.
.do.
.do. .do. .do. .do. .do. .do.
Highlands Hotel Apart- ment Co.
do
Jos. J. Darlington and Geo. E. Fleming, Trs. for Cairo Apartment House Co.
do
do
do
do
do
do
Larz Anderson
....do
....do
do
....do
do
....do
Highlands.
.do.
Cairo.
Thomas F. Walsh.
....do
do
do
.do.
.do.
.do. .do.
.do.
.do.
.do.
.do.
11,130 5,545
2,481 29, 509
3,980 3,623
1,882
1,875 3,002 2,344 2,916 2,102 1,007 16.691
5,040
1,9:58
1,942 1,942 2,242 2,033 2.033 22, 033 4,243 4,lX)0 4,582 11.142 14,8-16 315
507
6,971
1,777 1,979
2,535
7,736
2,623
3,054
$7.00 8.00
40.00 16.00
15.00 6.00
6.00
S.OO
5.00 14.00 17.00
8.00 10.00
1.50
.90 1.50
1..50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
3.00
.75
.75
3. .30
4.00
10.00
12.00
12.00
10.00 10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
$77,910 44,360
99,240 472, 144
59,700 21,738
11,738
9,375 15,010 32.816 49.572 10,S1G 10.070 25,037
4,536 2,907
2,913 2,913 3,363 3,050 3,0.50 3.050 72, 729 3,450 3,437 36, 769 59, 384 3,150
6,084
83,652
17,770 19,790
25,350
77,360
26,230
50,540
$350,000 40,000
100,000 620,000
20,000 136,000
75,000
70,000 '240," 666
202,000
250,000 30.000 10,000
225,000
25,000
3,000 3,000
3,200
5,000
6,600
4,000
CITY PLANNING.
25
3. ASSESSED VALUATION OP CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN WASHINGTON, D. C, JUNE,
1908— Continued.
|
Square. |
Lot No. |
Assessed to — |
Building. |
Square feet. |
Rate. |
Ground. |
Improve- ments. |
|
Sublet 30 Sublet 31 |
Thomas F. Walsh |
2,510 2, 803 2,802 2,510 13,328 1,213 4,333 1,562 600 436 |
$8.00 8.00 2.00 2.50 17.00 2.50 3.75 2.75 2.75 1.75 |
$20, 080 22,424 5,604 6,275 226, 576 3,033 16,249 4,296 1,375 763 |
|||
|
do |
$11,000 |
||||||
|
Sublet 32 on alley. Sublet 33 on alley. Sublet 60 |
do |
||||||
|
252 |
do |
||||||
|
do |
350,000 2,000 120,000 |
||||||
|
Of 1-N. 17.50 feet. Of 1-S. 62.50 feet. Of 2-E.25feet. |
do |
||||||
|
do |
|||||||
|
405 |
do |
||||||
|
Of 2-5 feet |
do |
||||||
|
Of 2-b. g |
do |
||||||
4. TYPICAL HOLDINGS AND ASSESSED VALUATION IN SEVERAL SQUARES IN THE DIS- TRICT OF COLUMBIA IN JULY, 1908.
Square 5860. Seven holdings of an acre each assessed at $0.01 per square foot.
Square 5872. Twelve holdings of an acre each assessed at from $0,015 to $0,005 per square foot.
Square 5874. Ten holdings of an acre each assessed at three-fourths of 1 cent per square foot.
Square 5875. Fourteen holdings of 1 acre each assessed at one-half cent per square foot.
Square 5876. Thirty-four holdings of 1 acre each or more, assessed at one-fourth cent per square foot.
Square 5877. Fifteen holdings of 1 acre, assessed one-fourth cent to 1 cent per square foot.
5. STATEMENT REGARDING THE ASSESSMENT OP LAND IN WASHINGTON. [By the president of a trust company In Washington, who does not wish to have his name known.]
The fact is that there is quite a considerable portion of the District of Columbia not included in the city of Washington which consists of farming lands, and these farming lands are assessed at simply outrageous prices and are sold at figures wav beyond what they should be considered fairly worth, measured from the use to whicn they could be put to-day or even in the near future.
Of course this selling price is purely speculative, and is a gamble upon the proba- bility that some time in the future they will be taken into the city and have a value which justifies their purchase at this high level at this time.
6. SIZES OP HOLDINGS OF LAND IN WASHINGTON, D. 0.
[Secured from the assessor's books, July, 1908.]
There was the following list of holdings of various sizes recorded on the assessor's books for 1908, most of them assessed as acreage. In several cases one party owned many of these holdings:
10 to 25 acres 284
25 to 50 acres 121
50 to 75 acres 31
75 to 100 acres 14
100 to 1 50 acres 8
Over 150 acres 1
A few holdings within a small fraction of an acre of 10 acres were so listed .
Several of the holdings noted above are only part of the land owned by the corpora- tions, families, and estates.
About 7 per cent of all the land in the District of Columbia, exclusive of parks, governmental reservations, streets, and exempt land, is owned by 7 companies and over 10 per cent is owned by 17 companies, families, and estates.
26
CITY PLANNING.
II. Prices Paid for Land for Municipal and Federal Purposes in the Dis- trict OF Columbia Compared with the Assessed Valuation.
1. statement regarding land values in the district of COLUMBIA. [Information fiu-nished by the auditor of the District of Columbia.]
Property is asse.ssed at only two-thirds of its supposed true value. The rate on all property in the District, both city and county, is 1^ per cent on the a.ssessed valuation.
Property acquired by the District of Columbia for a plaza site and new streets incident to the construction of the new Union Railway Station.
The items marked with a "C" indicate that the property was condemned; the remainder was bought outright.
|
Square. |
Lot. |
Area. |
Assessed value, 1903. |
Price paid by District of Columbia. |
Assessed value at time acquired. |
Date acquired. |
|
626 |
Part of 21 |
Square feet. 61 1,265 1,363 1,214 |
$42.70 4, 455. 00 2,559.00 2,387.00 |
C$375.00 16,000.00 0 6, 750. 00 0 6, 250. 00 |
$122.00 6,163.00 3,104.00 2,561.00 |
Apr. 16,1909 |
|
Part of 50 |
Sept. 1, 1908 |
|||||
|
Part of 51 |
Apr. 16,1909 |
|||||
|
Part of 52 |
Do. |
|||||
|
Part of 51 |
||||||
|
Part of 52 |
||||||
|
Part of 53 |
1,744 42,575 11,980 9,772 1,712 3,331 5,493 967 1,330 1,834 917 917 917 3, 568 918 917 1,034 917 928 1,387 1,3.S7 4,161 917 917 1,387 917 1,104 917 917 917 1,034 1,034 1,034 1,034 1,034 1.0.34 2,011 1,590 1,103 |
5,396.00 23, 416. 00 16,357.00 5,375.00 599. 20 1,685.00 9,921.00 1,629.00 1,7^8.00 2,150.00 1,075.00 1,075.00 1,075.00 6,640.00 1,075.00 1,075.00 1,210.00 1,075.00 1,078.00 2,332.00 2, 332. 00 6, 996. 00 1,075.00 1,075.00 2, 332. 00 1,075.00 2,218.00 1,075.00 1,075.00 1,075.00 1,210.00 1,210.00 1,210.00 1,210.00 1,210.00 1,210.00 17,212.00 3,072.00 9,003.00 |
011,2.50.00 115,160.48 75,000.00 14,658.00 2,304.05 6,673.31 20,0.50,00 3, 750. 00 "4, 200. 00 6, 000. 00 2,850.00 3, 000. 00 3, OfX). 00 13,800.00 2, 9.50. 00 3,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 3,0W.00 5, 300. 00 5, 350. 00 16,300.00 3, 000. 00 3, 000. 00 5, 500. 00 3, 000. 00 5, 000. 00 0 4,284.00 C 4, 284. 00 C 4, 0.54. 75 0 3,634.00 0 3,634.00 0 3,634.00 0 4,628.00 0 4,860.87 0 4,7.32.00 33, 000. 00 7,000.00 14,512.87 |
7,388.00 23,416.00 16,357.00 5,375.00 599, 20 1, 685.00 9,921.00 1,629.00 1,798.00 2,1.50.00 1,075.00 1,075.00 1,075.00 6, 64f). 00 1,075.00 1,075.00 1,210.00 1,075.00 1,078.00 2,332.00 2,332.00 6,996.00 1,075.00 1,075.00 2,332.00 1,075.00 2,218.00 1,259.00 1, 259. 00 1,259.00 1,217.00 1,217.00 1.217.00 1,217.00 1,217.00 1,217.00 17,212.00 3,072.00 9,003.00 |
Do. |
|
|
680a |
11, 12, 13, 14, parts of 15, 16, and 17. 18, 24, 25, parts of 19, 20, 21,22, 23, 20, and 27. Parts of 13 and 14 Parts of 18 and 19 A B and C |
June 14,1905 |
||||
|
081 |
Apr. 18,1904 June 14,1905 |
|||||
|
682 |
Do. |
|||||
|
Do. |
||||||
|
11,6,7,8,9, and 11.... 10 |
Jan. 9, 1905 July 8, 1904 |
|||||
|
12 |
July 28,1904 |
|||||
|
721 |
147 and 151 |
Apr. 29, 1904 |
||||
|
152 |
Mav 20,1904 |
|||||
|
150 |
May 17,1904 |
|||||
|
150 |
June 4, 1904 |
|||||
|
163, 104, and 105 160 |
June 10,1904 June 14,1904 |
|||||
|
153 |
July 1, 1904 |
|||||
|
199 |
July 20,1904 |
|||||
|
154 |
July 26,1904 |
|||||
|
161 |
Aug. 1,1904 |
|||||
|
168 |
Aug. 12,1904 |
|||||
|
167 |
Aug. 26,1904 |
|||||
|
169, 170, and 171 157 |
Sept. 2,1904 Sept. 28, 1904 |
|||||
|
159 |
Do. |
|||||
|
172 |
Oct. 18,1904 |
|||||
|
158 |
Oct. 22,1904 |
|||||
|
162 |
June 30,1905 |
|||||
|
148 |
Feb. 20,1906 |
|||||
|
149 |
Do. |
|||||
|
155 |
Feb. 23,1906 |
|||||
|
198 |
Feb. 20,1906 |
|||||
|
200 |
Do. |
|||||
|
201 _ 202 |
Do. Do. |
|||||
|
203 |
Feb. 23,1906 |
|||||
|
204 |
Feb. 20,1906 |
|||||
|
722 |
43 |
June 2, 1904 |
||||
|
723 |
14 and parts of 13, 15, and 16. Paris of 40 and 41 |
Nov. 5,1904 May 6, 1905 |
||||
|
Total |
121,510 |
127,853.90 |
464,729.33 |
157,417.20 |
||
|
15 to 40, Inclusive All |
||||||
|
PUBLIC PLAY- aROUND SITES. South of 043 4533 |
42, 676 |
5,651.00 |
14.000.00 |
5,726.00 |
Apr. 29,1907 |
|
|
4534 |
. ...do |
|||||
|
4535 |
do |
155, .3.38 87,422 |
9,320.00 22,167.00 |
31,000.00 29,966.00 |
12,423.00 22,167.00 |
Mar. 30,1907 |
|
1273 |
June 2, 1907 |
|||||
|
Total |
285,436 |
37,138.00 |
74,966.00 |
40,316.00 |
||
• This property (square 680), unimproved, was assessed in 1903 at 55 cents per square foot; the Govern- ment acquired it in 1905 at $2.70 per square foot. It is assessed in 1909, unimproved, at $5 per square foot; that is, the remaining parts of the lots mentioned and adjacent ones.
CITY PLANNING. 27
1. STATEMENT REGARDING LAND VALUES EN THE DISTRICT OF COLTJMBIA — Continued.
Square.
SITE FOR NEW POLICE COURT.
489.
FIRE STATION SITES.
79... 319.. 2583.
Total.
PUBLIC SCHOOL SITES.
182
284
388. 444. 800.
553
South of 643.
860
985
1038
1215. 1244.
2576. 2856.
2673. 2673.
2674. 2890.
3000. 3069.
3527. 4514.
5157.
Total.
Lot.
Parts of G and 7 , 63 ,
22 and 23
19 and 20
21, 22, and 23
20 to 24, inclusive. 15.
1 , 21 to 24, inclusive.
2 to 6
25
1 to 14, inclusive.
101 and 102
17
46 to 56, inclusive.
27, 32, and 33
3
Parts ofI29 and 130. 51 to 61, inclusive... 16 to 19, inclusive. .
76 to 106
107
803
PartoflS
Part of 14
3, 5, 809, SIO
816
813 and 814
815
27
811 and 812
2
817
26
4 to 8, inclusive.
4, 5, and 6
1, 2, and 3
Parts of 16, 17, and 18 iof3, J of 13, and 4 to
12. Part of 7
Square feet. 6,260
8,697 5,562 7,500
21,779
6,937
9,100
13,650
16,250
2,520
20,872
8,134
6,555
43,395
3,600
7,062
7,665
29,252
25, 200
5,320
12,775
28,503
30,000
67,944
28, 220
6,348
5,874
5,391
62,100
2,587
3,000
3,000
7,500
7,650
7,500
202
7,500
41,504
23, 875
23,625
8,475
3,000
51,600
43,392
Assessed value, 1903.
$22,085.00
4,873.00
18,028.00
1,875.00
C $35,410.00
6,300.00 40,000.00 6,000.00
24,776.00
6, 950. 00
17,171.00
27,951.00
8,919.00
3, 146. 00
3,045.00
1,220.00
2,622.00
5,541.00
1,260.00
1,059.00
1,380.00
4, 100. 00
4,930.00
2,896.00
5,053.00
7,125.00
7,500.00
20,383.20
8, 466. 00
1,904.40
1, 762. 20
1,617.30
15, 525. 00
388.00
450.00
450.00
1,125.00
1,147.50
1,125.00
39.00
1, 125. 00
2, 525. 00
5, 425. 00
3, 750. 00
678.00
180.00
3, 432. 00
433.92
630, 247
183, 799. 02
Price paid by District
of Columbia.
9,713.00
031,500.00
55, 400. 00
16, 636. 00
5,000.00
7,931.75
C 2,847.02
3,837.00
13,500.00
2, 340. 00
3,500.00
3,610.00
10,500.00
15,120.00
5,811.20
7,665.30
22,000.00
18,000.00
50,958.15
14,500.00
2, 566. 00
2,383.11
3, 773. 70
31, 050. 00
905. 62
1, 050. 00
1,050.00
2, 625. 00
2, 677. 50
2, 625. 00
C 104. 80
C 3, 000. 00
8, 400. 72 13, 895. 00
9, 450. 00 4,800.00
600.00 11,610.00
3,471.34
Assessed value at
time acquired.
$22,085.00
3,479.00 19,686.00 3,750.00
26,915.00
6,950.00
15,351.00
29, 964. 00
8,619.00
3, 650. 00
3,047.00
1,220.00
2, 662. 00
5,541.00
1,260.00
1,059.00
1,916.00
4,387.00
4, 220. 00
2, 896. 00
5,053.00
7,125.00
7,500.00
27,133.00
8,466.00
2,539.00
2,150.00
2,156.00
15, 525. 00
518.00
500.00
600.00
1,500.00
1, 530. 00
1, 500. 00
52.00
1,500.00
2, 525. 00
5, 725. 00
3, 750. 00
1,317.00
180.00
3, 432. 00
433. 92
359,407.21 I 195,452.82
Date acquired.
Sept. 27, 1904
Aug. 23,1908 Apr. 20,1909 Nov. 24,1906
July 25,1904 Mar. 11,1909 Aug. 7,1908 May 4, 1909 July 11,1906 Nov. 13,1906 Aug. 30,1907 Sept. 5,1908 July 13,1905 Apr. 19,1905 July 28,1908 Dec. 5, 1907 10, 1907 8,1908 2,1905 17, 1905 17,1907 18, 1907 17,1906 July. 16,1904 July 28,1908
Do.
Do. July 23,1908 July 31,1908 Aug. 3, 1908
Do. Aug. 4, 1908 Sept. 24, 1908 Oct. 21,1908 Nov. 9, 1908
Do. Aug. 28, 1906 Dec. 14,1907 Aug. 29, 1907 Aug. 10,1907 Jan. 20,1906 Aug. 20, 1904
July Oct. Aug. Oct. July July July
Apr. 17,1907
2. STATEMENT SHOWING ASSESSED VALUE, AREA, AND PRICE PAID FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY FOR FEDERAL BUILDING SITES IN THE CITY OF WASHINGTON, D. C. FURNISHED BY MR. F. X. TAYLOR, SUPERVISING ARCHITECT OF THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT.
[Land in the District of Columbia is supposed to be assessed at two-thirds of its true value.]
Post-office annex (square 324):
Area square feet. . 39, 298
Assessed at —
Land only $77, 657
Improvements. .• 40, 500
$118, 157.00
Cost 395, 189. 00
28 CITY PLANNING.
New post-ofRce:
Area square feet. . 178, 483
Assessed at —
Land only $314, 434
Improvements 4, 000
$318, 434. 00
Cost 450,000.00
Hall of Records:
Area square feet. . 157, 711. 86
Assessed at —
Land only $121, 821
Improvements 22, 700
$144, 521. 00
Cost 303, 493. 80
Bureau of Engra\nng and Printing (new):
Area square feet. . 224, 010. 24
Assessed at —
Land only $76, 663
Improvements 38, 300
$114, 963. 00
Cost 396, 502. 40
III. Certain Bills and Briefs for Improving the Present Methods op Assessing Land, Taxing Land, and Acquiring Land for Public Purposes.
1. concurrent resolution for a constitutional amendment in new YORK
IN relation to a court op condemnation proceedings.
[State of New York. No. 215. Int. 210.]
In Senate, January 27, 1909.
Introduced by Mr. Brough; read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the committee on the judiciary.
[Matter in italics is new; matter in brackets [ ] Is old law to be omitted.]
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION To amend article six of the constitution by adding a new section to be known as section twenty-four, and section seven of article one in relation to a court of condemnation proceedings and other matters relating thereto.
Section 1. Resolved (if the assembly concur). That article six of the constitution be amended by adding a new section thereto to be numbered section twenty-four to read as follows:
Sec. 24. The legislature may establish a court of record, in any county not contained with other counties within a city, or in any city containing tcithin its boundaries more than one county, which court may be vested with original jurisdiction in proceedings for taking private property for public use, assessing property for benefits and awarding dam- ages, and in proceedings for the review of assessments of property for taxation. Judges of such court shall sit without a jury. The judges shall be appointed in such manner and hold office for such term as the legislature may prescribe.
Sec. 2. Resolved (if the Assembly concur), That section seven of article one of the constitution be amended to read as follows:
Sec. 7. When private property shall be taken for any public use, the compensation to be made therefor, when such compensation is not made by the State, shall be ascer- tained by the supreme court or by a court constituted pursuant to the provisions of section twenty-four of article six of this constitution or by a jury, or by not less than three com- mi.H.sic)ners appointed by a court of record, as shall be prescribed by law. Private roads may be opened in the manner to be prescribed bv law; but in every case the necessity of the road and the amount of all damage to be sustained by the opening thereof shall be first determined by a jury of freeholders, and such amount, together with the expenses of the proceeding, shall be paid by the person to be benefited. General laws may be passed permitting the owners or occupants of agricultural lands to construct and maintain for the drainage thereof, necessary drains, ditches, and dikes upon the lands of others, under proper restrictions and with just compeiisation, but no special laws shall be enacted for such purposes.
Sec. 3. Resolved (if the assembly concur). That the foregoing amendment be referred to the legislature to be chosen at the next general election of senators, and in conformity
CITY PLANNING. 29
with section one, article fourteen, of the constitution, be published for three months previous to the time of election.
2. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT IN NEW YORK IN
RELATION TO EXCESS CONDEMNATION.
[State of New York. No. 216. Int. 211.]
In Senate, January 27, 1909.
Introduced by Mr. Brough — read twiceand ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the committee on the judiciary.
[Matter underlined is new. Matter in brackets [ ] is old law to be omitted.]
Concurrent Resolution To amend section six of article one of the constitution in relation to taking private property for public use.
Section 1. Resolved (if the assembly concur), That section six of article one of the constitution be amended by adding thereto a clause to read as follows: When private property shall be taken for public use by a municipal corporation, additional adjoining or neighboring property may be taken under conditions to be prescribed by the legislature by the general law. Property thus taken shall be deemed to be taken for public use.
Sec. 2. Resolved (if the assembly concur), That the foregoing amendment be referred to the legislature to be chosen at the next general election of senators, and in conformity with section one, article fourteen of the constitution, be published for three months previous to the time of such election.
3. an act to provide in new YORK state for the recording in the deed of the
ACTUAL price PAID FOR LAND. [State of New York. No. 395. Int. 360.]
In Senate, February 12, 1908.
Introduced by Mr. Saxe.— Read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the committee on the judiciary.
[Matter in italics is new; matter in brackets [ ] is old law to be omitted.]
AN ACT To amend the real property law by adding a new section, in relation to recording conveyances in New York, Kings, Queens, and Richmond counties.
The people of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:
Section 1. Chapter five hundred and forty-seven of the laws of eighteen hundred and ninety-six, entitled "An act relating to real property, constituting chapter forty-six of the general laws," is hereby amended by adding to article eight, after section two hundred and forty-one, a new section to be known as section two hundred and forty-
one-a. , n- i.
Sec. 241-a. Recording of conveyances in New York, Kings, Queens, and Richmond counties. — In the counties of New York, Kings, Queens, and Richmond, on and after the first day of July, nineteen hundred and eight, every deed or other conveyance, of the fee of any real property, shall contain, after the acknowledgment thereof, an affidavit by the grantor, or one of the grantors named in the deed or other conveyance, setting forth the true money consideration therefor, including all deferred payments to the grantor, or any other person, secured or unsecured, and the estimated value of any property given in exchange. The form of such affidavit shall be substantially as follows: County of
-, being duly sworn, says that he is the grantor or one of the grantors named in the within deed or other conveyance; that the true money consideration for the premises thereby conveyed, including all deferred payments, to the grantor, or other person, secured or unsecured, was dollars, and that no other considera- tion was given or promised, and property of the estimated value of dollars was
given in exchange.
Sworn to before me this day of .
30 CITY PLANNING.
In lieu of such affidavit in the deed or other conveyance, an affidavit of sub- stantially the same form, describing the deed or other conveyance to which it relates, may be executed by the grantor or grantee, or one of the grantors or grantees named in such deed or other conveyance, and such afiidavit shall be filed in the office of the department of taxes and assessments in the borough in which the real property conveyed by such deed, or other conveyance, is located, within five days after the day such deed, or other conveyance, is offered for record; Buch affidavit shall be for the use of the department of taxes and assessments only, and shall not be open to public inspection. If the affidavit above prescribed is not contained in the deed or other conveyance and no affidavit, of substantially the same form, is filed in the office of the department of taxes and assessments, within the time prescribed, either the grantor or grantors, or the grantee or grantees, may he required to appear five days after personal notice at the main office of the department of taxes and assessments in the borough of Manhattan and be examined, under cath, ae to the true consideration for such deed, or conveyance, provided that such u'.tice to appear be personally served upon such grantor or grantee within one year from the date of recording the deed or other conveyance concerning which information as to consideration is desired. Any such grantor or grantee who shall fail to obey such notice to appear and be examined, or refuse to answer any material question, shall be liable to a penalty of twenty-five dollars a day for each and every day of such failure or refusal after receiving personal notice, but the total penalty to each person shall not exceed two hundred dollars. The corporation counsel may sue for and recover the amount of such penalty, and the same shall be paid into the general fund of the city of New Yor"k.
Sec. 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
4. BRIEF SUR CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ACT OF JUNE 8, 1907 (P. L. 466, PENNSYLVANIA), PROVIDING FOR CONDEMNATION OF PROPERTY FOR PARKS, PARKWAYS, AND PLAY- GROUNDS AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FEET THEREOF.
Statement of question.— Is the taking of private property contiguous to a parkway and within 200 feet thereof in order to protect such parkway, its environs, the preserva- tion of the view, appearance, light, air, health, and usefulness thereof, by reselling such property with proper restrictions to those ends, a taking for a public use?
1. Respective provinces of legislature and courts. — Whether it is expedient or wise for the legislature to grant this authority to take property for public use is purely a polit- ical question and one solely for the'legislature. But whether the use, to which it is sought to appropriate the property authorized to be taken, is a public use, is a judicial question for the determination of the courts. (Philadelphia Y. & S, Ry. Co.'s petition, 203 Pa., 354, 362, and causes cited.)
f . The strong presumption that the use is public. — If a public use be declared by the legislature, the courts will hold the use public, unless it manifestly appears by the provisions of the act that they can have no tendency to advance and promote such use. This is a stronger presumpt ion than the usual one in favor of an act because the question whether or not a use is a public use is a question of fact, and therefore the courts are loath to set up their judgment against that of the legislature. (Ree's Appeal, 12 Atl. 427 (1888) and Penna. cases cited. Pittsburgh r. Scott, L. Pa. 309 (1845). Copley Square case (Attorney-General v. Williams) 55 N. E. 77 (1899), hereafter cited at length. Olmsted r. Camp, 33 Con. 551 . Wilton v. Dickson, 22 L. R. A. 496 (1893) and casescited Hayes t'. Essex Co., 12 Cush. (Mass.), 475 at 477. Rensselaer r. Leopold, 106 Ind., 29. Dietrich v. Wardock, 42 Mo. 279, 283.)
This is especially so where, as here, the legislature has emphatically declared that the use is a public use. .
Section 4 of the act of June 8, 1907 (P. L. 467), provides: "The taking, using, and appropriating, by the right of eminent domain as herein provided, of private property for the purpose of making, enlarging, extending, and maintaining public parks, park- ways, and plavgrounds and of neicrhhoring property, within two hundred feet of the boundary lines of such public parks, parkways, and playgrounds, in order to protect Buch public parks, parkways, and playgrounds, their environs, the preservation of the view, appearance, light, air, health, and usefulness thereof, by reselling such neighboring property, with such restrictions in the deeds of resale as will protect said property, so taken for the aforesaid purpose is hereby declared to be taking, using, and appropriating of such private property for public use."
Ree's Appeal (12 Atl., 427: 1888). The act of June 14, 1887 (P. L., 383), author- izing the incorporation of companies for exhibiting artistic products, etc., gave them the right of eminent domain and use of language similar to that just quoted, as follows:
"The taking of such public lands for the erection and maintenance thereon of
CITY PLANNING. 31
buildings, or other structures, for the public exposition of manufartured articles, agricultural products, minerals, and all articles pertaining to the arts and sciences and providing public instruction in the arts and sciences, by the right of eminent domain, is hereby declared to be taking of said land for public u«e."
The act was attacked as unconstitutional, and the master's opinion upholding the act, which opinion was expressly adopted by the supreme court "as a sound exposi- tion of the law," relied upon the declaration to show the use a public use, as follows (p. 430):
"While the question of what is a public use is finally a judicial question, yet it has been aptly said in the case of Railroad Company's Appeal (79 Pa., 357) 'that the control of the right of eminent domain rests with the legislature (Cooley, Const. Lim., 538), and that the degree of the public necessity for the exercises of that right is exclu- sively for their ascertainment (Smedley v. Irwin, 51 Pa., 445) is undoubted.'
"The legislature, by the act of June 14, 1887, not only has ascertained that necessity and granted the right of eminent domain in set terms, but it has declared the taking of such public lands for the purposes named in the act to be a taking of said land for public use. Act June 14, 1887, section 4 (P. L., 385). The master therefore concludes that none of said reasons are well founded, and that the said act of June 14, 1887, is constitutional."
-?. No general definition of "public use." — There has been no successful attempt to frame a definition of the term "public use" other than that the exercise of eminent domain shall be for the public good. There has been general acquiescence in the wisdom of Justice Gilchrist of the supreme court of New Hampshire, when, in 1845 he said (Concord R. v. Greely, 17 N. H., 47, 61):
"Such a definition should comprehend not only all the existing public purposes justifying such a proposition, but should anticipate the future exigencies of society, demanding new laws and varied exercises of the protection and fostering aid of the State." And he therefore refuses to "undertake very difiicult, if indeed practicable task, of framing a definition which shall determine in every case the validity of a law appropriating to such use the land of individuals.
The same judge had earlier replied to an argument based on a provision in the con- stitution of New Hampshire as follows (p. 58) :
"It has been argued that the public uses for which private property can be taken must be such as existed when the constitution was adopted, and that, as railroads were unknown at that time, an application of private property for their use could not have been contemplated by the constitution. This argument would prove too much, because it would show that society should remain where it was fifty-three years ago, and would make us forget all the progress that the human race has made in that time in the arts, in intelligence, in the science of government, and in all that elevates a nation. This position would restrain the otherwise versatile energies of the Govern- ment from adapting themselves to new exigencies that might arise in the anticipated duration for which it was created, and limiting the benefits it was designed to confer upon the State to such as were capable of being accomplished by means then known; as if physical science and discovery could never yield new elements of wealth and power, and the wisdom of man could never devise other avenues than were then in use for the pursuit of the legislative ends of society and which might require the strong and benignant arm of the Government to aid in opening."
Olmstead v. Camp (33 Conn., 551). The court in discussing the line between public and private uses said:
"From the nature of the case there can be no precise line. The power requires a degree of elasticity to be capable of meeting new conditions and improvements and the ever-increasing necessities of society. The sole dependence must be on the pre- sumed wisdom of the sovereign authority, supervised, and, in cases of gross error or extreme wrong, controlled by the dispassionate judgment of the court."
Laird r. Pittsburgh (205 Pa., 1). The same thought of change in human institutions was expressed by Chief Justice Mitchell in this case. After quoting Blackstone's definition of a park as "an inclosed chase extending only over a man's own grounds," he said (p. 5>:
"With the change of manner and habits of the people came also a change in their associations with the use of words. The idea of a public park in or near a city as a place of resort of the people generally for recreation and amusement necessarily ban- ished the idea of a home for wild beasts of the chase, even in a very modified state of nature. The trimming away of thickets and underbrush, the substitution of reg- ular pathways paved and railed and artificially lighted, which would have been incongruous to our forefathers now enter into the accepted idea of a park." And it may be added, our idea of a park now includes its surroundings, as well as the graas, trees, and regular pathways of the open space.
32 CITY PLANNING.
Philadelphia Street Railway Company's Petition (203 Pa., 354; 1902). Justice Dean again refers to the same progress, saying (p. 364):
"The growing necessities of a progressive age must be met by the exercises of the state's power of eminent domain; the public road appropriates the bridle path, the turnpike road the public road, the electric railway the turnpike road, the steam rail- road the canal bed."
Shoemaker v. United States (147 U. S., 282). Justice Shiras likewise said (p. 297):
"In the memory of men now living a proposition to take private property without the consent of its owner for a public park, and to assess a proportionate part of the cost upon real estate benefited thereby, would have been regarded as a novel exercise of legislative power. * * * The validity of the legislative acts erecting such parks and providing for their cost has been uniformly upheld. It will be sufficient to cite a few of the cases:
"Brooklyn v. Park Commissioners v. Armstrong (45 N. Y., 234); In re Commissioners of the Central Park (63 Barb., 282); Owners of ground v. Mayor of Albany (15 Wend., 374); Holt v. Somerville (127 Mass., 408); Foster v. Boston Park Commissioners (131 Mass., 225; also 133 Mass., 321); St. Louis C. C. v. Griswold (58 Mo., 175); Cook v. South Park Commissioners (61 111., 115); Kerr v. South Park Commissioners (117 U.S., 379).
"In these and many other cases, either directly or in effect, it was held that land taken in a city for public parks and squares, by authority of law, whether advan- tageous to the public for recreation, health, or business, is taken for a public use."
See especially Copley Square ca.se, hereafter cited.
"Although use in common speech usually conveys the idea of possession and enjoy- ment, it is here interchangeable with purpose." (Randolph on Eminent Domain, p. 53 of edition of 1894.)
4. Condemnation for light, air, and view a public use. — The preservation or improve- ment of a park by adding to it rights in light, air, and view, by means of a statute prohibiting the erection of buildings over 90 feet high around it, compensation for injuries caused by the limitation being provided for in the statute, is for a public use.
The Copley Square case (Attorney-General v. Williams, 174 Mass., 476; 55 N. E., 77; 1899). The legislature of Massachusetts passed an act prohibiting the erection of any building fronting on the streets that surround Copley Square, Boston, to a height over 90 feet, and provided for compensation to all persons sustaining damage to their property by reason of this limitation. The defendants being about to erect a build- ing, known as "Westminster Chambers," to a greater height, this bill was brought to restrain them, and the prayer was granted, and the decision was unanimously a^irmed on appeal to the supreme court. In its opinion, per Knowlton, J., the court, after referring to the right to make regulations under the police power continued :
"But it (the statute) differs from most statutes relative to this subject, in providing compensation to persons injured in their property by the limitations which it creates. * * * In this respect it conforms to the constitutional requirements for the taking of property by the right of eminent domain. Looking to all its provisions in connection with the place to which they apply, it seems to have been intended as a taking of rights in property for the benefit of the public who use Copley Square. It adds to the public park rights in light and air and in the view over adjacent land above the line to whicn buildings may be erected. These rights are in the nature of an easement created by the statute and annexed to the park. Ample provision is made for com- pensation to the owners of the servient estates. In all respects the statute is in accord- ance with the laws regulating the taking of property by the right of eminent domain, if the legislature properly could determine that the preservation or improvement of the park in this particular way was for a public use. The uses which should be deemed
Eublic in reference to the right of the legislature to compel an individual to part with is property for a compensation, and to authorize or direct taxation to pay for it, are being enlarged and extended with the progress of the people in education and refine- ment. Many things which a century ago were luxuries, or were altogether unknown, have now become necessaries. It is only within a few years that lands have been taken in this country for public parks. Now the right to take lands for this purpose ie generally recognized and frequently exercised.
Many statutes have been passed in this Commonwealth allowing taxation for pur- poses affecting the health, conifort, pleasure, and recreation of the people, and thus con- ducing to their welfare. In Kingman n. City of Brockton(153 Mass., 255; 26N. E.,998) the court said, referring to a statute authorizing the raising of money by taxation for the erection of a memorial hall: 'The statute * * * may be vindicated on the same ground as statutes authorizing the raising of money for monuments, statues, gates or arches, celebrations, publication of town histories, parks, roads leading to points of fine scenery, decorations upon public buildings, or other public ornament or embel- lishments designed merely to promote the general welfare, either by providing for fresh
CITY PLANNING. 33
air, a public recreation, or by educating the public taste, or enforcing sentiments of patriotism or respect for tke memory of wortny individuals. The reasonable use of public money for such purposes as has been sanctioned by several different statutes, and the constitutional right of the legislature to pass such statutes resta upon sound principles.
"The grounds on which public parks are desired are various. They are to be enjoyed by the people who use them. They are expected to minister not only to the grosser senses but also to the love of the beautiful in nature, in the varied forms which the changes in seasons bring. Their value is enhanced by such touches of art as help to produce pleasing and satisfactory effects on the emotional and spiritual side of our nature. Their influence should be uplifting, and in the highest sense educational. If wisely planned and properly cared for they promote the mental aa well as the physical health of the people. For this reason it has always been deemed proper to expend money in the care and adornment of them, to make them beautiful and enjoyable. Their esthetic effort never has been thought unworthy of careful consideration by those best qualified to appreciate it. It hardly would be contended that the same reasons which justify the taking of land for a public park do not always justify the expenditure of money to make the park attractive and educational to those whose tastes are being formed and whose love of beauty is beine cultivated. We have already quoted from the information the language in regard to the surround- ings of the square. The counsel on both sides referred in argument to the well-known buildings which constitute these surroundings. Trinity Church, the Museum of Fine Arts, the Boston Public Library, the New Old South Church, the Second Church of Boston, and the buildings of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, all face the beholder who stands on Copley square and looks around him. Some of these build- ings are public in the ordinary sense of the word, and some of the corporations which own them have been beneficiaries of the Commonwealth on account of their quasi public character, and the public certainly feels an interest in them.
"If the legislature, for the benefit of the public, was seeking to promote the beauty and attractiveness of a public park in the capital of the Commonwealth, and to pre- vent unreasonable encroachment upon the light and air which it had previously received, we can not say that the lawmaking power might not deterrnine that this was a matter of such public interest as to call for an expenditure of public money, and to justify the taking of private property. While such a determination should not be made without careful consideration, and while the growing tendency toward an enlargement of the field of public expenditure should be jealously watched and care- fully held in check, a determination of this kind, once made by the legislature, can not be lightly set aside."
This case was affirmed on appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States under the name of Williams v. Parker (188 U. S., 491).
It then came before the supreme court of Massachusetts again, being reported in Attorney-General v. Williams (178 Mass., 330; 1901).
It appears the defendants in the previous case had actually erected their building above 90 feet. They were ordered to remove the portion above 90 feet. The result- ing decapitation was clearly visible in the summer of 1905.
See also the State House case, reported as Parker v. Commonwealth (178 Mass., 199; 1901). A similar Massachusetts act was passed "to limit the height of buildings in the vicinity of the statehouse" to 70 feet. The attorney-general contended that, although the act provided for compensation to injured owners, they were entitled to none, as the act was an exercise of the police power. Thereupon the plaintiffs, prop- erty owners, filed petitions for the appointment of a jury to assess theu- damages, and a demurrer was overruled by the supreme court, thus sustaining the validity of the act as for a public use.
5. Esthetic purposes a public use. — Where exhibitions of artistic products for public education in the arts ana sciences is a public benefit, and even a private corporation formed to hold such exhibitions may be properly given the right of eminent domain.
Appeal of Rees et al. (12 Atl., 427; 1888). The act of June 14, 1887, provided for the incorporation of companies organized for "the education of the public by exhibit- ing artistic, mechanical, and horticultural products, and providing public instruc- tions in the arts and sciences." It also granted to such companies the right of eminent domain. The Pittsburgh Exposito Society was formed under this act and proceeded to appropriate certain property, whereupon » bill in equity for an injunction was brought. It was referred to a master, who recommended the dismissal of the bill, which was done. On appeal to the supreme court the decree was affirmed.
If a private corporation can be authorized to take land for such artistic purposes, Burely a public municipal corporation can be permitted to control the surroundings
31972— S. Doc. 422, 61-2 3
34 CITY PLANNING.
of a great public improvement like a parkway, so that the result of the expenditure of the public moneys on the improvement shall be a completely beautiful thing, both in itself and its setting, in the picture and in the frame.
Ornamental Courtyards case, reported as In re City of New York (68 N. Y. Supp., 196; 1901), affirmed on appeal (60 N. E., 1108). An act of the legislature directing the widening of Clinton avenue both in Brooklyn and New York by adding 20 feet on each side, the act stating: "The two strips of land hereby added to said avenue shall not be added to its traveled portion, but shall be reserved and preserved as orna- mental courtyards for the benefit and improvement of said avenue. The acquisition of an estate and interest in the said two strips of land, subjecting and limiting their use," as provided, was directed by the act. Held that this was a public use. The court saia (p. 208):
"It is not necessary that every part of all highways should be used for the passage of vehicles and pedestrians. It is proper that some regard should be had for the esthetic tastes, the comfort, health, and convenience of the public."
Foster v. Park Commissioners (133 Mass., 321; 1882), at page 334: "It is impossible to hold, as a matter of law, that a park can not be located and laid out, even if there is no adequate provision of law whereby courts can compel it to be constructed in a manner which they may deem suitable for public use. * * * There might be a public park, intended to be kept open for prospect, air, and light, or as a protection against the spread of fires, or for other purposes, and not intended to be entered upon and used by travelers." Also Copley Square case, ubi supra.
Higginson v. Nahant (11 Allen, 530; 1866) held that a road laid out "with the design to provide access * * * for the public to points or places * * * esteemed as pleasing natural scenery" was for a public use.
6. This power a corollary of the power to acquire parks. — The objects of the open spaces created by parks, park ways, and playgrounds are, first, beauty; and, second, health. The power to condemn private property in order to create such open spaces is, it is everywhere admitted now, a power to condemn for a public use. The power given in this act is supplementary to the power to take private property for these open spaces, and its validity is a corollary to the validity of the power to take for the open spaces themselves either object considered:
(a) Beauty: A park surrounded by ramshackel buildings is not a beautiful place unless it is so large that these eyesores can be "planted out." But in the case of a park way, playground, or small city park, the architecture of the buildings that abut thereon can not be planted out. The height and general design of their facades and the use to which they are to be put should be under the control of the public just so far as this act permits, if the park, park way, or playground is to be really beautiful. The example of Paris is all that need be suggested to show the result of the exercise of this power. This act secures just this control by providing, section 3, that the deeds of resale are to contain such restrictions "as will fully insure the protection of such public parks, park ways, and playgrounds, their environs, the preservation of the view, appearance," etc.
(6) Health: The act also expressly provides, in section 3, that the neighboring property shall be sold "with such restrictions in the deeds of resale in regard to the use thereof as will fully insure the public parks, park ways, and playgrounds, the preservation of the * * * light, air, health, and usefulness thereof."
The obvious result of the open space of a park is the admission of sunshine and fresh air. Parks have justly been called "the lungs of the city." If a city can not control the surroundings of the lungs, the amount of sunlight that reaches them may, in this day of thirty and forty story buildings, be very small indeed.
We are just learning the importance of the light of the sun and of fresh air in the fight against tuberculosis. If parks, parkways, and playgrounds, and the open space they give are a city's best weapons against tuberculosis and other dangers to health, surely the city should be given the power to control the surroundings so that unpolluted fresh air and undiminished sunshine can reach the parks. Surely the city should be able to prevent the air from being polluted by smoke, for instance.
The exercise of this power is therefore for the good of the public in two ways— health and beauty. Can there be a more important or beneficial "public use" than one that conduces to these two ends? . ,• ,
The Copley S(^uare case, ubi supra: "It adds to the public park rights in light and air, and in the view over adjacent land, etc.
"These rights are in the nature of an easement created by the statute and annexed to the park. * * *
"If the legislature, for the benefit of the public, was seeking to promote the beauty and attractiveness of a public park in the capital of the commonwealth and to prevent imreaeonable encroachment upon the light and air which it had previously received,
CITY PLANNING. 85
we can not say that the lawmaking power mi^jht not determine that this was a matter of such public interest as to call for an expenditure of public money and to justify the taking of private property."
7. Broader power given to Fainnount Park Commission in 1867. — A broader power in principle, though more limited in its application, was given and acted upon by the Fairmount Park Commission by act of March 26, 1867, section 13, as follows:
"It shall be lawful for said park commissioners to acquire title to the whole of any tract of land, part of which shall fall within the boundaries mentioned in the first section of this act, and to take conveyance thereof in the name of the city of Phila- delphia; and such part thereof as shall be beyond or without said park limits, again to sell and convey in absolute fee simple to any purchaser or purchasers thereof," etc.
It will be observed that this power was not given to protect the park, and no restric- tions as to future use were imposed. This land without the park boundaries was not desired for either the use or control of the public.
The real objects were two, both practical and both equally applicable to the act of 1907, viz: (1) The saving of money by preventing the public from paying too much because when part of a property is taken juries are apt to give a verdict equal to the value of the whole; (2) the gaining of money by recouping part of the expense of the park by reselling these outside lots at increased prices owing to their being improved by the city's act in creating the park.
(a) The object of preventing the public from being mulcted is especially applicable to this act of 1907 in reference to a parkway like the Fairmount Park parkway. The city will be compelled to pay for triangular strips the value of entire lots, and yet the owner will receive more valuable frontages. By this act the city can take the entire lot in such a case, unless indeed the lot extends more than 200 feet from the boundary of the parkway.
(6) If the city takes the whole of such properties it can resell the part without the parkway at an increased price and so recoup the expenses at least in part. In other words, the city will get the benefit of its expenditure of public moneys instead of the individuals who happen to be the owners.
8. Use public, though property to be partly in control o/individuxils. — The use is none the less a public use, because, after resale, this neighboring property will be in the partial control of private owners, subject, that is, to the restrictions provided in the act. The city having the right to take absolutely for the park or parkway or play- ground purposes may take a lesser estate than would be necessary for a complete dedication to the use of the public.
The control of the surroundings of a park, parkway, or playground being determined to be for a public use, the legislature may authorize the city to take and keep abutting
f)roperty absolutely. This being so, the legislature may authorize the city to keep a esser control, the method and extent being in the legislative discretion.
Again, the control desired may be different at one point of a parkway from that desired at another point, and at one time from that desired at another time, and for this reason the method chosen by the legislature was the only practicable one.
In re City of New York (ubi supra) tJie court said (p. 200): "Conceding that the legislature has the power to increase the width of Clinton avenue; that it would be justified in taking possession of private property for this purpose upon the payment of just compensation — we are of opinion that it has a right to take a lesser estate in the property than would be necessary for a complete dedication to the use of the public, and that the use is none the less public, to the extent to which the property is taken, because it is left in the partial control of the present owners. The right that is pro- posed to be taken is not the right to walk or ride over these particular additions to the width of the avenue, but to afford 'ample space for the access of light and air and also to beautify and adorn.' In re Curran (38 App. Div. 82, 55 N. Y. Supp. 1018) 'A street may,' to quote the same case, 'in part unite the two purposes — one to fur- nish a way for travel, and the other as a park or public place.' It may hardly be questioned that the legislature may authorize the taking of any part of that right which it may deem advantageous to the public on the payment of just compensation." (See Amer. & Eng. End. Law (2d ed.) 1088, and authorities cited. In re Bushwick Ave., 48 Barb., 9; Sage v. Brooklyn, 89 N. Y., 189, 198.)
Brooklyn Park Comm. v. Armstrong (45 N. Y., 234):
"In the exercise of the right of eminent domain, the legislature are the sole judges to what extent the public use requires the extinguishment of the owner's title. * * * The nature of the right acquired by the public in such cases, whether an absolute title to or a mere easement in the lands, depends, therefore, upon the inten- tion of the legislature, to be deduced from the act authorizing the condemnation."
The Copley Square case (ubi supra).
36 CITY PLANNING.
9. Extent for legislation. — The use being a public one, the extent to which such neighboring property shall be taken for such use whether 200 feet or more or less, rests wholly in tne legislative discretion.
United States v. Gettysburg Railway (160 U. S., 668). In the unanimous opinion per Peckham, J., the court said (p. 685): "It is also objected that the exception below is valid, wherein it is stated that all the land of the railroad company ought to be taken, if any were to be taken. The use for which the land is to be taken having been determined to be a public use, the quantity which should be taken is a legis- lative and not a judicial qucKtion."
Shoemaker v. United States (147 U. S., 282, 297): "The adjudicated cases likewise establish the proposition that while the courts have the power to determine whether the use for which private property is authorized by the legi.'^lature to be taken is in fact a public use, yet, if that question is decided in the aflirmative, the judicial function is exhausted; that the extent to which such property shall be taken for such use rests wholly in the legislative discretion, subject only to the restraint that just compensation be made."
(In re City of New York, 68 N. Y., Supp. 196, 200 (1901); affirmed 60 N. E., 1108. St. Louis Court Ct. v. Griswold, 58 Mo., 175; 1874.)
10. Public may control land icithin 1,000 feet of parks. — The public interest in and control of the surroundings of a park extends not only 200 feet, as provided by the act of 1907, but 1,000 feet. Further, the city may declare certain lawful occupations nuisances per se if carried on within 1,000 feet of parks. Clearly then this act of 1907 providing for control only to the distance of 200 feet, and further providing compensa- tion for gaining that control, is a valid exercise of power.
Scranton City v. Straff (28 Super. 258; 1905). The city of Scranton passed an ordi- nance which prohibited "the operation of any ring game, game of chance, merry-go- round, razzle-dazzle, shooting gallery, air-gun, animal show, musical instruments in places of entertainment where refreshments are sold, freak show, or entertainment of the usual side-show variety, or shower entertainment of similar character, within 1,000 feet of any public park in the city of Scranton." The defendant operated a merry-go-round within that distance of a park, and, on conviction, appealed, and the superior court unanimously affirmed the decision.
5. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OP HARTFORD CONCERNING A COMMISSION ON THE CITY PLAN.
[Approved March 26, 1907.]
General Assembly, January Ses.sion, A. D. 1907.
Resolved by this Assembly:
Section 1. That there shall be in the city of Hartford a commission on the city plan, which shall consist of the mayor, who shall be its presiding officer, the president of the board of street commissioners, the president of the board of park commissioners, the city engineer, two citizens, neither of whom shall hold any other office in said city govern- ment, one member of the board of aldermen, and one member of the common council board, to be appointed as hereinafter provided.
Sec. 2. The necessary expenses of said commission shall be paid by the city, but no member thereof shall be paid for his services as such member.
Sec. 3. During the month of April, 1907, the mayor shall appoint one citizen mem- ber of said commission to hold office for two years, and one citizen member to hold office for three years from the first of May then next ensuing, and in the month of April, 1909, and in April in the years thereafter when the terms of such citizen members respectively expire, the mayor shall appoint one citizen member of said commission for the term of three years from the 1st day of May then next ensuing. During the month of April, 1907, and in each April thereafter, the board of aldermen and the common council board of said city shall each appoint from its own number a member of said com- mission to hold office for the term of one year from and after the 1st day of May then next ensuing. The members of said commission shall hold office until their respective successors are elected and qualified.
Sec. 4. All questions concerning the location of any public building, esplanade, boulevard, parkway, street, highway, square, or park shall be referred to said commis- sion by the court oi common council for its consideration and report before final action is taken on such location.
Sec. 5. The court of common council may refer to said commission the construction or carrying out of any public work not expressly within the province of other boards or commissions of said city, and may delegate to said comniL-ision all powers which the said council deems necessary to complete such work in all details.
CITY PLANNING. 37
Sec. 6. Said commission may make or cause to be made a map or maps of said city, or any portion thereof, showing locations proposed by it for any new public building, esplanade, boulevard, parkway, or street, and grades thereof, and street, building, and veranda lines thereon, or for any new square or park, or any changes by it deemed advisable in the present location of any public building, street, grades and lines, square or park, and may employ expert advice in t,he making of such map or maps.
Sec. 7. Said city of Hartford, acting through said commission or otherwise, shall have power to appropriate, enter upon, and hold in fee real estate within its corporate limits for establishing esplanades, boulevards, parkways, park grounds, streets, high- ways, squares, sites for public buildings, and reservations in and about and along and leading to any or all of the same; and, after the establishment, layout, and comple- tion of such improvements, may convey any real estate thus acquired and not necessary for such improvements, with or without reservations, concerning the future use and occupation of such real estate so as to protect such public works and improvements and their environs, and to preserve the view, appearance, light, air, and usefulness of such public works.
Approved March 26, 1907.
6. Supreme Court op the United States.
[No. 153. October term, 1908.]
Francis C. Welch, trustee, plaintiff in error, v. George B. Swasey etal., as the board of appeal from the building commissioner of the city of Boston. In error to the supreme judicial court of the State of Massachusetts.
[May 17, 1909.]
The plaintiff in error duly applied to the justices of the supreme judicial court of the State of Massachusetts for a mandamus against the defendants, who constitute a board of appeal from the building commissioner of the city of Boston, to compel the defendants to issue a permit to him to build on his lot on the corner of Arlington and Marlborough streets, in that city. The application was referred by the justice presiding to the full court, and was by it denied (193 Mass., 364), and the plaintiff has brought the case here by writ of error.
The action of defendants in refusing the permit was based on the statutes of Massa- chusetts (Chap. 333 of the acts of 1904, and Chap. 383 of the acta of 1905). The two acts are set forth below.a The reason for the refusal to grant the building permit waa
a [Acts of 1904, chapter 333.] AN ACT Relative to the height of buildings in the city of Boston. Be it enacted, etc., as follows:
Section 1. The city of Boston shall be divided into districts of two classes, to be designated districts A and B. The boundaries of the said districts, established as hereinafter provided, shall continue for a period of fifteen years, and shall be deter- mined in such manner that those parts of the city in which all or the greater part of the buildings situate therein are at the time of such determination used for business or commercial purposes shall be included in the district or districts designated A, and those parts of the city in which all or the greater part of the buildings situate therein are at the said time used for residential purposes or for other purposes not business or commercial shall be in the district or districts designated B.
Sec. 2. Upon the passage of this act the mayor of the city shall appoint a commis- sion of three members, to be called "Commission on Height of Buildings in the City of Boston." The commission shall immediately upon its appointment give notice and public hearings, and shall make an order establishing the boundaries of the dis- tricts aforesaid, and within one month after its appointment shall cause the same to be recorded in the registry of deeds for the county of Suffolk. The boundaries so established shall continue for a period of fifteen years from the date of the said record- ing. Any person who is aggrieved by the said order may, within thirty days after the recording thereof, appeal to the commission for a revision; and the commission may, within six months after its appointment, revise such order, and the revision shall be recorded in the registry of deeds for the county of Suffolk, and shall date back to the original date of recording. The members of the commission shall serve until the districts have been established as aforesaid; and any vacancy in the commission caused by resignation, death, or inability to act shall be filled by the mayor, on written application by the remaining members of the commission or of ten inhabitants of the
88 CITY PLANNING.
because the building site for the proposed building was situated in one of the districts B, as created under the provisions oi the acts mentioned, in which districts the height of the buildings is limited to 80, or, in some cases, to 100 feet, while the height of buildings in cfistrict A is limited to 125 feet. The height of the building which plaintiff in error proposed to build and for which he asked the building permit was stated by him in nis application therefor to be 124 feet, 6 inches.
The plaintiff in error contended that the defendants were not justified in their refusal to grant the permit, because the statutes upon which their refusal was based were unconstitutional and void, but he conceded tnat if they were valid the defend- ants were justified in their refusal.
The court, while deciding that mandamus was a proper remedy, held that the stat- utes and the reports of the commissions thereunder were constitutional.
Mr. Justice reckham, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.
The ground of objection of plaintiff in error to this legislation is that the statutes unduly and unreasonably infringe upon his constitutional rights, (a) as to taking of property without compensation; (6) as to denial of equal protection of the laws.
Plaintiff in error refers to the existence of a general law in Massachusetts, applicable to every city therein, limiting the height of all buildings to 125 feet above the grade of the street, (Acts of 1891, en. 355), and states that he does not attack the validity of that act in any respect, but concedes that it is constitutional and valid. See also, on same subject. Acts of 1892, chapter 419, section 25, making such limitation as to the city of Boston. His objection is directed to the particular statutes, because they provide for a much lower limit in certain parts of the city of Boston, to be designated by a commission, and because a general restriction of height as low as 80 or 100 feet over
city. The members of the commission shall receive such compensation as the mayor ehall determine.
Sec. 3. In the city of Boston no building shall be erected to a height of more than one hundred and twenty-five feet above the grade of the street in any district desig- nated A, and no building shall be erected to a height of more than eighty feet above the grade of the street in any district designated B. These restrictions shall not apply to grain or coal elevators or sugar refineries in any district designated A, nor to steeples, domes, towers or cupolas erected for strictly ornamental purposes, of fireproof material, on buildings of the above height or less in any district. The supreme judicial court and the superior court shall each have jurisdiction in equity to enforce the provisions of this act, and to restrain the violation thereof.
Sec. 4. This act shall take effect upon its passage. (Approved May 13, 1904.)
[Acts of 1905, chapter 383.] AN ACT Relative to the height of buildings in the city of Boston.
Be it enacted, etc., as follows:
Section 1. Within thirty days after the passage of this act the mayor of the city of Boston shall appoint a commission of three members to determine, in accord- ance with the conaitions hereinafter provided, the height of buildings within the district designated by the commission on height of buildings in the city of Boston as district B, in accordance with chapter three hundred and thirty-three of the acts of the year nineteen hundred and four.
Sec. 2. Said commission shall immediately upon its appointment give notice and public hearings, and shall make an order establishing the boundaries of or otherwise pointing out such parts, if any, of siiid district B as it may designate in which buildings may be erected to a height exceeding eighty feet but not exceeding one hundred feet, and the height between eighty feet and one hundred feet to which buildings may so be erected, and the conditions under which buildings may be erected to said height, except that such order may provide for the erection of buildings as aforesaid to a height not exceeding one hundred and twenty-five feet in that portion of said dis- trict B which lies within fifty feet from the boundary line separating said district B from the district designated by the commission on height of buildings in the city of Boston as district A, in accordance with said chapter three hundred and thirty-three, provided said boundary line divides the premises affected by such order from other adjoining premises, both owned by the same person or persons, and within sixty days after its appointment shall cause the same to be recorded in the registry of deeds for the county of Suffolk. Any person who is aggrieved by such order may, within sixty days after the recording thereof, appeal to the commission for a revision; and the commission may, previous to the first day of January in the year nineteen hundred
CITY PLANNING. 39
any Bubstantial portion of the city is, as he contends, an unreasonable infringement upon his rights of property; also that the application of those limits to district B, which comprises the greater part of the city of Boston, leaving the general 125-foot limit in force in those portions of the city which the commission should designate (being the commercial districts), is an unreasonable and arbitrary denial of equal rights to the plaintiff in error and others in like situation.
Stating his objections more in detail, the plaintiff in error contends that the pur- poses of the acts are not such as justify the exercise of what is termed the police power, because, in fact, their real purpose was of an aesthetic nature, designed purely to preserve architectural symmetry and regular sky lines, and that such power can not be exercised for such a purpose. It is further objected that the infringement upon property rights by these acts is unreasonable and disproportioned to any public neces- sity, and also that the distinction between 125 feet for the height of buildings in the commercial districts described in the acts, and 80 to 100 feet in certain other or so- called residential districts, is wholly unjustifiable and arbitrary, having no well- founded reason for such distinction, and is without the least reference to the public safety, as from fire, and inefficient as means to any appropriate end to be attained by such laws.
In relation to these objections the counsel for the plaintiff in error, in presenting his case at bar, made a very clear and able argument.
Under the concession of counsel, that the law limiting the height of buildings to 125 feet is valid, we have to deal only with the question of the validity of the provi- sions stated in these statutes and in the conditions provided for by the commissions, limiling the height in District B between 80 and 100 feet.
We do not understand that the plaintiff in error makes the objection of illegality arising from an alleged delegation of legislative power to the commissions provided for by the statutes. At all events, it does not raise a federal question. The state court
and six, revise such order, and the revision shall be recorded in the registry of deeds for the county of Suffolk and shall date back to the original date of recording. The boundaries so established shall continue for a period of fifteen years from the date of the recording of the order made by the commission on height of buildings in the city of Boston under chapter three hundred and thirty-three of the acts of the year nine- teen hundred and four. The members of the commission shall receive such compen- sation as the mayor shall determine.
The designation of what parts in districts B and upon what conditions a building could be therein erected more than 80 while not more than 100 feet high was to be made by a commission, as provided for in the act of 1905, and the commission duly carried out the provisions of the act in that respect. The sole reason for refusing the permit was on account of the proposed height of the building, being greater than the law allowed.
Sec. 3. Within such parts of district B as may be designated by the commission as aforesaid (which may, except as hereinafter provided, include any parts of said district B affected by prior acts limiting the height of buildings) buildings may be erected to the height fixed by the commission as aforesaid, exceeding eighty feet but not exceeding one hundred feet, or one hundred and twenty-five feet, as herein- before provided, and subject to such conditions as may be fixed as aforesaid by the commission; but within the following described territory, to wit, beginning at the corner of Beacon street and Hancock avenue, thence continuing westerly on Beacon street to Joy street, thence continuing northerly on Joy street to Myrtle street, thence continuing easterly on Myrtle street to Hancock street, thence continuing southerly on Hancock street and Hancock avenue to the point of beginning, no building shall be erected to a height greater than seventy feet, measured on its principal front, and no building shall be erected on a park way, boulevard, or public way on which a building line has been established by the board of park commissioners or by the board of street commissioners, acting under any general or special statute, to a greater height than that allowed by the order of said boards; and no building upon land any owner of which has received and retained compensation in damages for any limitation of height or who retains any claim for such damages shall be erected to a height greater than that fixed by the limitation for which such damages were received or claimed.
Sec. 4. No limitations of the height of buildings in the city of Boston shall apply to churches, steeples, towers, domes, cupolas, belfries, or statuary not used for pur- poses of habitation, nor to chimneys, gas holders, coal or grain elevators, open balus- trades, skylights, ventilators, flagstaffs, railings, weather vanes, soil pipes, steam exhausts, signs, roof houses not exceeding twelve feet square and twelve feet high, nor to other similar constructions such as are usually erected above the roof line of buildings.
Sec. 5. This act shall take effect upon its passage. (Approved May 8, 1905.)
40 CITY PLANNING.
holds that kind of lofjislation to be valid under the state constitution, and this court will follow its delermination upon that question.
We come, then, to an examination of the question whether these statutes with reference to limitations on height between 80 and 100 feet and in no case greater than 100 feet arc valid. There is here a discrimination or classification between sec- tions of the city, one of which, the business or commercial part, has a limitation of 125 feet, and the other, used for residential purposes, has a permitted height of build- ings from 80 to 100 feet.
The statutes have been passed under the exercise of so-called police power, and they must have some fair tendency to accomplish, or aid in the accomplish ment of Bome purpose, for which the legislature may use the power. If the statutes are not of that kind, then their passage can not be justified under that power. These prin- ciples have been so frequently decided as not to require the citation of many authori- ties. If the means employed, pursuant to the statute, have no real, substantial rela- tion to a public object which government can accomplish; if the statutes are arbitrary and unreasonable and beyond the necessities of the case; the courts will declare their invalidity. The following are a few of the many cases upon this subject: Mugler v. Kansas (123 U. S., 623, 661); Minnesota v. Barber (136 Id., 313, 320); Jacobson v. Mas- sachusetts (179 Id., 11, 28); Lochner v. New York (198 Id., 45, 57); Chicago Railway Company v. Drainage Commissioners (200 Id., 561, 593).
In passing upon questions of this character as to the validity and reasonableness of a discrimination or classification in relation to limitations as to height of buildings in a large city, the matter of locality assumes an important aspect. The particular cir- cumstances prevailing at the place or in the State where the law is to become operative; whether the statute is really adapted, regard being had to all the different and material facts, to bring about the results desired from its passage; whether it is well calculated to promote the general and public welfare, are all matters which the state court is familiar with, but a like familiarity can not be ascribed to this court, assuming judicial notice may be taken of what is or ought to be generally known. For such reason this court, in cases of this kind, feels the greatest reluctance in interfering with the well- considered judgments of the courts of a State whose people are to be affected by the operation of the law. The highest court of the State in which statutes of the kind under consideration are passed is more familiar with the particular causes which led to their passage (although they may be of a public nature) and with the general situa- tion surrounding the subject-matter of the legislation than this court can possibly be. We do not, of course, intend to say that under such circumstances the judgment of the state court upon the question will be regarded as conclusive, but simply that it is entitled to the very greatest respect, and will only be interfered with in cases of this kind where the decision is, in our judgment, plainly wrong. In this case the supreme judicial court of the State holds the legislation valid, and that there is a fair reason for the discrimination between the height of buildings in the residential as compared with the commercial districts. That court has also held that regulations in regard to the height of buildings, and in regard to their mode of construction in cities, made by legislative enactments for the safety, comfort, or convenience of the people and for the benefit of property owners generally, are valid. (Attorney-General V. Williams, 174 Mass., 476.) We concur in that view, assuming, of course, that the height and conditions pro\ided for can be plainly seen to be not unreasonable or inappropriate.
In relation to the discrimination or classification made between the commercial and the residential portion of the city, the state court holds in this case that there is reasonable ground therefor, in the very great value of the land and the demand for space in those parts of Boston where a greater number of buildings are used for the purposes of business or commercially than where the buildings are situated in the residential portion of the city, and where no such reasons exist for high buildings. While so deciding the court cited, with apj^roval. Commonwealth v. Boston Adver- tising Company (188 Mass., 348), which holds that the police power can not be exer- cised for a merely aesthetic purpose. The court distinguishes between the two cases and sustains the present statutes. As to the condition adopted by the commission for permitting the erection, in either of the districts B — that is, the residential por- tion— of buildings of over 80 feet, but never more than 100, that the width on each and every public street on which the building stands shall be at least one-half its height, the court refuses to hold that such condition was entirely for aesthetic reasons. The Chief Justice said: " We conceive that the safety of adjoining buildings, in view of the risk of the falling of walls after a fire, may have entered into the purpose of the commissioners. We are of opinion that the statutes and orders of the commis- sioners are constitutional."
We are not prepared to hold that this limitation of 80 to 100 feet, while in fact a discrimination or classification, is so unreasonable that it deprives the owner of the
CITY PLANNING. 41
property of its profitable use without justification, and that he is therefore entitled under the Constitution to compensation for such invasion of his rights. The discrim- ination thus made is, as we think, reasonable, and is justified by the police power.
It might well be supposed that taller buildings in the commercial section of the city might be less dangerous in case of fire than in the residential portion. This court is not familiar with the actual facts, but it may be that in this limited commer- cial area the high buildings are generally of fireproof construction ; that the fire engines are more numerous and much closer together than in the residential portion, and that an unlimited supply of salt water can be more readily introduced from the har- bor into the pipes, and that few women or children are found there in the daytime and very few people sleep there at night. And there may in the residential part be more wooden buildings, the fire apparatus may be more widely scattered and so situ- ated that it would be more difficult to obtain the necessary amount of water, as the residence quarters are more remote from the water front, and that many women and children spend the day in that section, and the opinion is not strained that an undiscovered fire at night might cause great loss of life in a very high apartment house in that district. These are matters which it must be presumed were known by the legislature, and whether or not such were the facts was a question, among others, for the legislature to determine. They are asserted as facts in the brief of the counsel for the city of Boston. If they are, it would seem that ample justification is therein found for the passage of the statutes, and that the plaintiff in error is not entitled to compensation for the reasonable interference with his property rights by the statutes. That in addition to these sufficient facts, considerations of an aesthetic nature also entered into the reasons for their passage, would not invalidate them. "Under these circumstances there is no unreasonable interference with the rights of property of the plaintiff in error, nor do the statutes deprive him of the equal protection of the laws. The reasons contained in the opinion of the state court are in our view sufficient to justify their enactment." The judgment is there- fore affirmed.
True copy.
Test:
Cleric Supreme Court U. S.
IV. Methods of Taxation of Land and Municipal Land Ownership in Conti- nental Countries.
1. system of taxation on increase in land values in FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN.
Frankfort on the Main has a unique system of taxation on the increase in land values, aa follows:
1. The increased value tax was newly introduced by the finance reform enacted. This tax will be collected in the form of one assessment at the time of the transfer of property, for it is at such transfe*" that the increase in value of property is realized. Together with such increased value tax there will be collected an increased transfer tax, in the form of an additional levy or assessment called in Frankfort " Wahrschaf ts- geld."
Such transfer tax or " Wahrschaf tsgeld " amounts to 2 per cent of the selling price as against IJ per cent before the finance reform.
For the levying of the increased value tax the following system has been adopted: (A) With the transfer tax ("Wahrschaf tsgeld") an additional tax will be collected if more than twenty years have elapsed since the last transfer of the property. These additional taxes consist of percentages of the selling price, and amount to: In case of land built upon: Percent.
After twenty-thirty years 1
After thirty-forty years li
After more than forty years 2
In case of vacant lands:
After more than twenty-thirty years 2
After more than thirty-forty years 3
After more than forty-fifty years . 4
After more than fifty-sixty years 5
After more than sixty years 6
These additional taxes will not be collected if it be proved that the present selling price is not higher than that of the last sale or that it does not exceed the pripe paid at the last transfer by more than such additional tax at the highest.
42 CITY PLANNING.
(B) If leas than twenty years have elapsed since the date of the last transfer of prop- erty, and if the value oi such property Ix' found to have incrca.*<od lo per cent since the la.st transfer, then the following increased value tax must be levied in addition to the ordinary tax rates.
Such increased value taxes amount to: Percent.
2 per cfMit of the increased values if they amount to 15-20
3 per cent of the increased values if they amount to 20-25
4 per cent of the increased values if they amount to 25-30
5 per cent of the iiicrca.sed values if they amount to 30-35
6 per cent of the increased values if (hey amount to 35-40
7 per cent of the increased values if they amount to 40-45
8 per cent of the increased values if they amount to 45-50
9 per cent of the increa.sed values if they amount to 50-55
10 per cent of the increased values if they amount to 55-60
and so an additional tax of 1 per cent for every additional 5 per cent increase in value up to a maximum amount of 25 per cent.
2. FORM OP A PROGRESSIVE TAX UPON INCREASES IN LAND VALUES,
[Translation.] The German form of taxation is a moderate increase paid at time of transfer. Copy of a bill for Saxony of January 26, 1904.
Sec. 53. In all communes having a population of more than 10,000 an increment tax proportioned to the increase in value is to be paid by the transferrer in case of change in ownership of unimproved (umbebaut) land.
Under exceptional local conditions the levy of an increment tax may be required by the supervising authorities in communes of less than 10,000 inhabitants. This levy is to take place if the commune may be regarded as a suburb or if an unusual increase of population has taken place in it.
Sec. 57. The amount of the increment tax shall be:
If the increase of value is 5 to 20 per cent of the purchase value (erwerbswert), at least 5 per cent of the increase.
If the increase of value is 20 to 30 per cent of the purchase value, at least 10 per cent of the increase.
If the increase of value is 30 to 40 per cent of the purchase value, at least 15 per cent of the increase.
If the increase of value is 40 to 50 per cent of the purchase value, at least 20 per cent of the increase.
If the increase of value is over 50 per cent of the purchase value, at least 25 per cent of the increase.
If the increase in value is less than 5 per cent, there shall be no increment tax.
Sec. 58. The purchase value shall be that value which the land has for its actual utilization on the part of the seller, or if there is no actual utilization such value as it would have under appropriate agricultural use.
3. A SCHEME FOR PROGRESSIVE TAXATION OF LAND INCREASES IN BERLIN.
[Translation.]
Sec 7. In addition to the tax stated in section 1 (transfer tax, Unsatzsteuer) an increment tax shall be levied in case the present purchase price or market value of the land shall exceed by 10 per cent the price of value at the last change in owner- ship, regard being had to the allowances stated in section 9. For the levy of this additional tax it is immaterial whether the last preceding change in ownership has taken place before or after this ordinance goes into effect.
Sec. 8. The amount of the increment tax shall be as follows:
Five per cent of the increase in value, if this increase in value is more than 10 and up to 20 per cent.
Six per cent of the increase in value, if this increase in value is more than 20 and up to 30 per cent.
Seven per cent of the increase in value, if this increase in value is more than 30 and up to 40 per cent.
CITY PLANNING. 43
Eight per cent of the increase in value, if this increase in value is more than 40 and up to 50 per cent.
Nine per cent of the increase in value, if this increase in value is more than 50 and up to 60 per cent.
And so on, 1 per cent of the increape in value up to a maximum of 20 per cent.
For improved sites these rates shall be levied only if five years at most have passed between the last preceding and the current change of ownership. If more than five years and less than ten have elapsed, two-thirds of these rates shall be levied; if more than ten years have elapsed, one-third.
For unimproved sites the increment tax shall be two-thirds of these rates if more than ten years and less than twenty have elapsed since the last preceding change in ownership, and one-third if more than twenty years have elapsed. If the earlier purchase price or market value can not be ascertained, then supplements to the present selling price shall take the place of the increment tax. These supplements shall, for improved sitps, be:
Per cent.
After 10 at 20 years 1
After 20 at 30 years 1^
After 30 at 40 years 2
Over 40 years 2^
For unimproved sites:
After 10 at 20 vears 1
After 20 at 30 years 2
After 30 at 40 years 3
Over 40 years 4
Sec. 9. In ascertaining the increase in value taxable under section 8, the base shall be the former purchase price, but to this are to be added the following:
1. All expenses for permanent improvement of the land, including expenses for building streets and for connections with sewers. Expenses for remodeling or im- provements are not to be taken into account, so far as covered by insurance payments.
2. In case of unimproved sites, which the transferrer has not himself used "for agri- cultural or manufacturing purposes, 4 per cent interest of the preceding purchase price, less all receipts. Where land has been given without compensation for streets or public places, the whole purchase price remains attributable to the remaining land, and in case of division is to be attributed to the several parcels. No other additions are permissible. Any difference between the previous purchase price, supplemented by the allowances herein provided, and the present selling value, is to be regarded as an increase of value.
Taxation on increase of land value. — The small increase of taxation on land values in Berlin and other German cities is particularly due to the fact that there are so many restrictions, even in the center of the city, upon buildings, so that until within a comparatively few years there has been a relatively small amount of speculation and increase of land values in the inner part of the city. The proposition for an increment tax in Berlin was defeated particularly because of the preponderant influence of real estate owners in the city due to their property qualifications for the suffrage. As high as 500-fold profit has been made upon land in the suburbs of Berlin within the last twenty years. A similar condition prevails in Manhattan and other sections of New York and justifies the rapid increase and progression of taxation on increase in land value.
The following exemptions are made in certain German cities before the increased taxation, since the object upon which the increment tax is levied is the unearned increase of value of real estate during a specified period. Most of the following allow- ances commonly specified in the German system might be permitted in assessing the increment taxes in American cities.
1. All expenses for permanent improvement of the property, especially for additions or rebuilding, provided these have not been met out of the insurance receipts. Expen- ses for repairs and the like may not be deducted, since these serve not to increase the value of the property, but only to maintain it.
2. Expenses for street building and for sewer connections.
3. Expenses resulting from the mere change of ownership, such as taxes, registry and legal fees, transfer taxes, and the like. These deductions are, however, not allowed in all the tax ordinances. Where this allowance is provided for, it is usually by way of lump sum or general allowance, sometimes a general 5 per cent allowance, sometimes 3 per cent, and sometimes 3 per cent for unimproved land and 5 per cent for improved.
44
CITY PLANNING.
4. MUNICIPAL LAND OWNERSHIP IN FOREIGN CITIES. PROPORTION OF AREA OWNED.
Berlin
Munich
Leipzig
Strassburg . Hanover. . . Schoneberg Spandau...
Zurich
Vienna
Total area of city.
Acres. 15, 689. 54 21,2y0.24 14,095.25 19,345.45 9,677.25 2,3:58.tj0 10,470.37 10,894.64 67,477.57
Total amount of land owned by the city.
Acres.
39,151.28
13,597.02 8,406.84
11,806.98 5,674.90 1,6,'^3.33 4,480.79 5,621.52
32,062.48
Proportion of total city area.
Within city boundary.
Per cent. 9.2 23.7 32.3 33.2 37.7 4.2 3.05 26.0 13.4
Without boundary.
Per cent. 240.8 37.8 27.4 28.1 20.4 65.1 42.9 25.9 54.8
PROPORTION OF AREA OF CITIES OWNED WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS.
|
City area. |
Proportion owned by city withm the boundary. |
|
|
Acres. 23,202.69 16, 325. 89 9,675.69 |
Per cent. 48.9 |
|
|
35.4 |
||
|
34.6 |
||
5. FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN REDISTRIBUTION OP LAND LAW.
The redistribution is to be undertaken for the advantage of the public.
Market gardens, nurseries, and parks may be excepted.
The redistribution may take place on the motion of the local authorities, or of more than half of the landowners, provided that such landowners are at the same time owners of more than half of the area to be distributed.
The ground for streets and open places shall be separated from the total beforehand and the remainder in the form of regulated building plats of land brought in.
The apportionment shall as far as possible take place in the same locality as that in which the plats to be replaced are situated.
For ground necessary for streets and open spaces, so far aa it exceeds 30 per cent of the area of land brought in by the owner, compensation in money is to be granted.
The value of the building land apportioned must at least equal that of the old plat, otherwise the difference in value is to be made good to the owners in money. In the same manner compensation in money shall be granted in suitable cases for buildings, market gardens, nurseries, and the like, which have been taken.
The redistribution proceedings shall be carried out by a commission consisting of two commissioners of the president of the provincial council and at least one each of the following: A building expert, a lawyer, a certified surveyor, and a further expert.
The commission decides within what time the streets and open places are to be made ready for public traffic and building. If the redistribution takes place on the motion of the local authorities a period of four years may not, in general, be exceeded.
These principles agree in almost every point with those of the Badenese local roads law; a remarkable exception is formed, however, in the case of the separation of the ground necessary for streets and open spaces. This ground, according to the Frank- fort redistribution law, is separated from the total beforehand, and is, up to 30 per cent, assigned gratuitously to the community. According to the Badenese law, on the other hand, this ground is purchased for cash by the community before the redistri- bution, and this expenditure is made good to the community by the parties concerned only when the building operations have commenced.
Although, owing to the shortness of the time during which it has been in force (since June 1, 1903), no report can be made as to the application of the Frankfort edifltribution law, a wide experience in this field has nevertheless been acquired.
CITY PLANNING. 45
The efforts of the civic authorities to render land available by means of voluntary redistribution reach back about a decade, and although lengthy negotiations have often been required, they have been so far successful that up to the present time 250 acres of land have been rendered available in this manner. A rapid turning to account of the building plats followed all the redistributions and brought the owners concerned considerable profits.
The so-called Kieshaide, a much-subdivided tract of land comprising 34 acres, was the first to form the object of a large voluntary redistribution, and it has been chosen as a typical example for purposes of illustration. The negotiations with the 54 parties began in 1897, but had not at first any tangible results, for some of the owners, provoked, by lack of experience in this direction, to excessive caution, declined the redistribu- tion. After persistent continuation of the negotiations the possibility presented itself, in 1899, of redistributing, if not the whole area, at any rate the two southern blocks between Bismarck Allee and Moltke Allee. Gradually the attitude of reserve with regard to the proceedings gave way, and in the following year the redistribution of two further blocks between Moltke" Allee and Kettenhofweg was effected. The negotiations with the owners of the last five blocks were, in spite of the almost uni- versal willingness, long drawn out, for here the resistance of two owners of already built-upon estates had to be overcome, and it was therefore not until February, 1902, that the redistribution contract was completed. The principles applied in this volun- tary redistribution correspond in their effect to those established by law, but the whole proceeding allows of simplification and abridgment. The gratuitous surren- der of all the ground required for streets was also attained in this case, while, according to the Frankfort redistribution law, the community must give compensation for all the ground claimed for streets and open spaces to the extent of more than 30 per cent.
Moreover, strong opposition to surrendering a greater proportion than 30 per cent was not made, the surrenders for roads in the Kieshaide area var^-ing between 27.1 per cent and 40 per cent of the total. The ascertainment was effected by forming blocks up to the middle lines and the streets, and then calculating the share of each particular block. In the later voluntary redistributions this mode of operation has been abandoned, and in agreement with the redistribution law the proportion of building and street land in the whole area has been calculated, all the building land being equally di\-ided among the owners in proportion to the plots of land brought in.
Contemporaneously with the redistribution of the Keishaide area the preliminary conditions for building on the new land were settled. In the redistribution contract the town undertook to make the streets either pro\asionally or finally and to provide them with drains and water supply immediately after the making over of the street lands, the resulting charges being called in the course of the building operations, with interest at the rate of 3^ per cent reckoned from the date of completion.
The redistribution area is more than half built over; moreover, a large number of new erections are already in \-iew, handsome public places, worthy of a great city, have been made, and the district presents a picture of m.odern city building.
In conclusion it appears not superfluous to bring the advantages of the redistribu- tion of plots of land comprehensively into prominence.
The erection of buildings from an uneconomic and unhygienic standpoint is pre- vented and the future inhabitants are protected from unfit dwellings.
The property of every party interested is improved. _ Misshapen streets are avoided, the streets being made from the first in continuous lines, long enduring traffic difficulties are cleared away, and consistency in the extension of the city is rendered feasible.
The market for the building plots is enlarged and harmful speculation is thwarted.
Thus the redistribution of town land, with its tendency to a healthy reform of land ownership, deserves to be placed beside the many expedients for the, at the root, fundamental dwelling question.
But small attention need be given to the efforts made by private charity to provide houses for the working classes.
6. THE ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES BELONGING TO THE CITY OF DUS3ELD0RF, GER- MANY, AND THE CREATION OF THE LAND FUND.
[Translation from a municipal document.]
The city of Dusseldorf has lately acquired large tracts of land.
The administfation could not possibly avoid the necessity of buying land at the advantageous prices, any more than other cities.*
The extension of the city and the unexpected appearance of many municipal I problems, the very large extension of municipal undertakings, the practicability of I the removal of various institutions, make it necessary for the municipality to become
46 CITY PLANNING.
the owner of land in various sections of the city. The administration which meets the necessary needs of the hour and leaves the provision for the future to the coming generations may. be justly accused of shortsightedness. Experience teaches that a plat of land is very often much dearer at the time that it is needed than some time pre\'iou8ly.
The city should not, however, acquire land only for its own immediate needs. It is entirely to be sanctioned, if the city participates in the rise in the prices of land through the establishment of municipal institutions that causes such rise in the price of land serving such institutions. Such predispossession may be had through the acquisition of Targe tracts of land by the municipality. The city should especially become the owner of land in the suburban sctions and thus influence the develop- ment of the sections, the mode of building and creation of larger squares, and should influence also the opening of land for building purposes and thus keep down the prices of these plats.
Such and similar reasons which need not be gone into detail, being induced by municipalities in the past and will continue to induce them in the future, to acquire land that is not necessary for immediate use.
That such acquisitions can not be paid for from the current income is self-evident. For technical reasons it would be desirable that the payment of such land be made with the money realized by the sale of plats of land in the occupied portions of the city if such lands are not needed for future use.
It would then be advisable that the real estate of the city, not necessary for such use, be transferred to a fund created for the acquisition of new land, and that such estates already in the pos.'^ession of the city be sold and new ones be acquired, as the authori- ties may find profitable. It should be kept in mind that the city not only remains in possession of real estate by the acquisition of new lands, but that it also participates in the rise in the price of land in general. It will do this if it wishes the surplus lands for the erection of buildings which may give it an income.
The properties named m the list set forth the possessions of the city in real estate, which have not been devoted to any special purpose or have not been used for any particular municipal business undertaking or for administrative purposes; to the last category belong buildings erected for the use of laborers for dwellings.
These properties have a value according to Chief Surveyor Graff of 10,000,000 marks.
Already these estates are charged with an expenditure of 2,781,305.05 marks which has not been paid.
According to the decision of the city council this cost is to be paid out of money real- ized from the sale of municipal lands.
This expenditure is realized in the main from the purchase of some grounds and the sale of others, the proceeds of which has been used for other purposes. It is also to be explained in part by the fact that the municipality can not always realize from sales as much as it needs for the purchase. It must acquire at times, if it is wise, lands in excess of what it can sell, for it is often desirable to buy just at the time when it is very difficult to sell, the prices then being lower. The lands that the municipality own are not always ready for sale when it would need the money. It may also be questioned whether it is best to sell lands or make other profitable use of them. The municipalities are, therefore, obliged if they do not want to give up the idea of profit- ably using lands to make loans for their acquisition.
This is not at all to be deprecated; it depends, of course, upon circumstances. It may be even said that there are no other loans so sure to be paid as those for which real estate is guaranteed. Such a funded loan is so much the better when as is here suggested the use of any extensive, already existing plots is not had to meet current expenses.
The interest of such loans could be paid from the current income of the municipality. That would be the best solution of the problem, but as the better may be the enemy of the good, so such a far-sighted solution of the problem could do injury to the attain- ment of the end itself. We could hardly expect that the taxpayer of the present should pay the cost of improvements from which he will have no immediate benefit but which will entirely accrue to the benefit of the next generations. The interest on such a loan as well as its redemption must rather be met out of the income of the fund itself, and in as far as there is no such income it must be paid with money realized from the sale of lands.
The increase in the value of municipal lands is, according to experience, on an average at least 4 per cent annually, taking a long number of years as a standard. Even though stagnation in the rise of prices does set in at times, still the interest at 4 per cent will be found to have been realized, and we may even figure upon 4 per cent with compound interent, wherea'^ an investment at 4 per cent doubles itself in seventeen years, we have found ground values treble and quadruple theinjelves during the same time and in some cases multiply themselves more than that.
CITY PLANNING. 47
To take up loans for the acquisition of lands has a disadvantage besides that another use may be made of such lands than to sell them, if such a sale would give no more than the capital with interest.
Land may therefore be built upon or leased for a long term of years in order that they may be built upon by the lessees.
One must not object, therefore, that the debt of the municipality will be increased by such a loan. The amount of the debt should never be taken as a standard for the economic welfare of any corporation. The test always is, Do the clear assets of such corporation rise or fall? Can the interest and redemption of the debt be met out of incomes and profits? and finally, Has a redemption oi the debt been so managed that the debtor does not fall into embarrassment? These are the real tests for economic welfare, in spite of the magnitude of the debt.
From these points of \'iew the taking up of a debt by the municipality of Dusseldorf for the purpo.se of acquiring lands to meet the needs oi the city can not be deprecated.
A limit to such acquisition must, however, always be set by limiting the amount of the loan to be taken up. If an amount of 5,000,000 marks be provided for, this will be sufficient to meet existing obligations and will leave a surplus of 2,000,000 marks for the purchase of lands.
If we glance at the list we will find that it would not at all be difficult to obtain 5,000,000 marks by the sale or mortgage of lands in the possession of the municipality. The extent of such lands would, of course, be materially increased by those to be pur- chased with the 2,000,000 marks above mentioned. That would, however, not be necessary, for a normal redemption of lands may be provided for over a number of forty-one years, and no redemption of the entire sum can be demanded before such time. The municipality would not be able, on the contrary, to pay annually 250,000 marks from its regular income without materially increasing the tax rate.
Loans should be made successively, according to the progress of purchases. The vendors could in some cases be paid with bonds. Should, during intervals, sales be made, then further loans may be avoided. If then the amount of loan proAdded for has been taken up, the condition of the fund should be determined, and it may then be decided whether further loans are to be entered upon.
It was on this basis that Frankfort on the Main, whose realty possessions are very extensive and are located in all parts of the city, has created a special fund for munici- pal loans and has taken up a loan of 6,000,000 marks for the purpose.
To limit the amount of such loans something else must be added. Administration of the land fund must be conducted according to certain principles. The lands must never be adapted to such purposes that will no longer permit the taking up of a loan for which such lands may be a surety. If such application should, however, be made of the lands, then funds must be added to in other ways to make up for such loss. It is also to be remembered that all the current income rising from such administration of land should be applied to meet the current expenses and to be used for any other purpose.
Finally, the administration of municipal lands must be sound and consistent. In order to attain this it would be wise to create a committee which should attend to the administration of lands and prepare suggestions and recommendations relative to the administration of such lands which are to be acted upon by the city council.
The system of bookkeeping relative to such lands should also be as simple as possi- ble, so that it may always be seen what the condition of the fund is, and if liquidation should have to be entered into what amount may be realized from the sale of such land in order to meet the loans taken up for this fund.
It is therefore recommended:
1. That the committee be appointed to administer municipal lands.
2. That a land fund be created and that the land or building named in the lease be turned over to this fund.
3. That a loan of five million marks at 3^ to 4 per cent be taken up and that a sinking fund be created for the redemption of the loan, which sinking fund is to receive on deposit of 1 per cent annually, and the interest saved. Such a loan is to be taken up by the issuing of municipal bonds and the courses indicated are to be met from such loan.
Dusseldorf, October 25, 1901. ,
Mayor.
Creation of a land fund in Dusseldorf. — 1. The lands and buildings (named in list 1 of October 3, 1901), the money then belonging to the fund realized from the sale of lands and amounting to 145,485.49 marks, the mortgages belonging to that fund and amounting to 342,143.35 marks, as well as the lands, buildings, and moneys that may be turned over to such fund by a decision of the municipal council, are to constitute a land fund of the city of Dusseldorf, to be separately administered and maintained intact.
48 CITY PL-ANNING.
2. The regular receipts from the sales or leases for long terms of years of lands belonging to such fund and those which may hereafter be t\irned over to it, the collection of claims and other moneys, and especially loans taken up to carry out the end for which such funds is created, may be used to meet current expenses, to purchase lands or claims to such lands, to erect profitable buildings, to pay the inter- est of and redeem debts arising by taking up loans for purposes for which the fund was created, as well as to meet all other expenses and costs directed by the acquisi- tion of lands.
3. Lands that are to serve some particular purpose of the municipality should not be turned over to the above-named land fund, but should at once be applied to such uses. Lands, on the contrary, which will be only partly used for particular pur- poses may be provisionally turned over to such land fund.
4. Should lands belonging to such land fund be later required for particular uses, then payment is to be made to the land fund for the lands thus required. Should such lands, however, be made to serve some legitimate municipal purpose, then payment for such lands may be made by turning over their lands at cost, and 3* per cent interest is to be added for the time between the taking of the lands required and the giving of their lands in return.
5. Should the expenses of the fund exceed the income during any one year, this deficiency is to be made over to the next year.
6. Books must be closed at the end of every year, and the balance is to be earned over to the next.
Principles for the keeping of such books will be laid down by the committee.
7. The administration of the current busines.'^ relating to such land fund and the preparation of such suggestions to be acted upon by the municipal council are to be attended to by the committee appointed to administer such land fund.
V. Building Regulations as to Height and Proportion of Site, etc., that MAY BE Covered in Foreign and American States and Cities.
1. PRUSSIAN LAW OF JULY 2, 1875, CONCERNING THE LAYING OUT OF AND ALTERATION OF STREETS AND SQUARES IN CITIES AND COUNTRY PLACES.
[Base-line law.]
Paragraph 1. The street and building base line set by common council agreeing with the municipality for the laying out or alteration of streets and squares in cities and country places with respect to their alteration, according to the public need, are to be established with the consent of the local police authorities.
The local police authorities can demand the establishment of base lines, if the police consideration to be observed by them demand the establishment of the same, and the sidewalks are regarded as streets in this sense. The building base line regu- larly forms the street base line, etc.; i. e., the boundaries beyond which building is
For special reasons a building base line may be established differing from the street base line, but regularly receding from the latter a maximum distance of 3 m.
Paragraph 2. The base line, paragraph 1, can be established for single streets and parts of streets, or, according to the apparent needs of the near futiu-e. can take place by the issuing of building plans for larger areas. If the building of whole localities is in question, resulting from a complete destruction by fire or other accidents, then it is the duty of the municipality to decide as quickly as possible how and to what extent a new building plan can be issued for the locality in question, and, in case of emergency, to effect the immediate establishment of the new building plan.
Paragraph 3. Traffic, fireproof conditions, and the public health are to be taken into consideration in establishing the base line, and no disfigurement of the streets is
to be permitted. ai • ^ -j*!.
For that reason provisions must be made for the establishment of a sutiicient widtti for the street and a good connection between the new lota and those already existing.
Paragraph 4. In establishing base lines in every case (par. 1) there must be an accurate specification of the lot and parts of lots in question and a specification of the line of survey as well as the intended drainage of the streets and squares in question.
Paragraph 5. The consent of the local police authorities (par. 1) may only be with- held in^case the police considerations to be observed demand it.
In case the common council is not satisfied with the refusal, then the county com- mittee decides the case at its request.
The same decides upon the expediency (of the case) at the request of the local police authorities, if the municipal council refuses the conditions demanded by the local police authorities. (Par. 1, Alnea 2.)
CITY PLANNING. 49
Paragraph 6. If the place of the intended base line (par. 4) affecte a fortress, or if they fall in public streams, country roads, railways, or railway stations, then the local police authorities are given sufficient time and opportunity to protect their interests.
Paragraph 7. Following the approval of the local police authorities with regard to the county committee, the council must make the plans available to the public. When this has been done the announcement is made, according to local customs, that objections to the plan must be filed within a fixed and definitely limited time of at least four weeks. If specifications are under consideration that affect only single lots, then notification to the participating owners is sufficient, instead of the announcement and publication (above mentioned).
Paragraph 8. The provincial committee must give the decision about the objections that have been raised, wherever these have not been finally dealt with in the trans- actions of the county council and the complainants. If objections have not been raised, or if the same have been finally dealt with, then the council must specify the plan plainly, make it available to the public, and wherever it is necessary publish it in the customary manner.
Paragraph 9. If several localities are concerned in the establishment of base lines, then the interested council shall come to an agreement. The committee settles points upon which the above parties can not agree.
Paragraph 10. All base lines that have been affected before, as well as after, the issue of this law can be remitted or changed only according to the specifications of the above conditions.
The royal consent is necessary for the establishment of new building plans, or alterations in those already existing for the cities of Berlin, Potsdam, Charlottenberg, and their near vicLuities.
Paragraph 11. On the day on which the opening of the street set forth in paragraph 8 begins, the limitations the owner is subject to go into final effect, i. e., that new buildings inclosing and sxirmounting (i. e., superstructures) buildings are not per- mitted beyond the base line. The municipality has equally the right to take the areas set aside for streets and squares by the established street base lines, from the owner.
Paragraph 12. A local statute may determine that dwelling houses may not be erected that have an exit on streets or parts of streets that have not yet been prepared for public traffic and building accordmg to the specifications of the local building police authorities.
The local statute is to determine the further particulars within the limits of the above regulations, and has to have the approval of the circuit council. Objections to the decisions of the circuit council are and may be filed with the provincial council within a limited time of twenty-one days. After the statute has been passed it must be published in the customary manner.
Paragraph 13. An indemnity can in no case be demanded for the limitation of freedom to build, regulated according to paragraph 12, and can only be granted in the following cases, where property that is affected by the establishment of new base lines is taken away or limited :
First. If lots intended for streets and squares are surrendered for purposes of public traffic at the demand of the municipality.
Second. If the streets or building base lines touch existing buildings and the lot up to the new base line is kept free from buUdings.
Third. If the street base line of a street that is to be newly laid out touches an empty lot that is qualified to be built upon, i. e., a lot lying at the line of the estab- lishment of the base line, on another street already existing and prepared for public traffic and building, and also when the building follows along the base line of the new street. An indemnity will in all cases be granted for taking away property intended for streets and squares. Moreover, in these cases of 2 that have to do with the limitation of property following the establishment of a building base line different from the street base line, indemnity will be granted for the limitation of that part of the property that was built up. (Par. 12 of the law for indemnification for property of June 11, 1874.) ^ ^ ^ , , i.
In all the above cases the property owner can demand that the whole lot be taken over if it is entirely encroached upon by the base line or only so much as to render the remaining area unfit for building purposes according to the local building police authorities regulations.
Every connected piece of property belonging to the same owner is regarded as a lot under tiie regulations of this paragraph.
Paragraph 14. The laws (paragraph 24 ff.) for the possession of property for June 11, 1874, go into effect in dispossessing and in establishing indemnities according to
31972— S. Doc. 422, 61-2 i
50 CITY PX.ANNING.
para,»Taph 13. Disputes over the validity of applications for indemnity are to be de- cided in court. The indemnity is to be defrayed by the municipality in whose juris- diction the respective lot lies, in so far aa no oflBcial who is subject to special legal measures is held responsible for the sum.
Paragraph 15. A local statute can determine that a suitable advance or compensa- tion for the expenses for all the following measures be rendered when a new street is laid out or an existing street is lengthened in case that it is intended for building purposes, as well as upon the building of already planned streets and parts of streets Dy the man who has taken over the new location or by the owners of neighboring properties (by the latter as soon as they erect buildings on the new streets). The expenses are for the survey, preliminary preparations, drainage, and lighting of the street in a suitable manner, as well as for the periodical (a maximum period of five years) repair. For these assessments the bordering properties can not be taxed for more than half of the width of the street, and if the street is wider than 26 m., for not more than 13 m. of the width of the street.
In calculating expenses the expenses of all the laying out of streets and the main- tenance of these, respectively, is to be added and the properties are to be taxed in proportion to frontage of the boundary touching the street (i. e., according to frontage).
The superior authority can establish the more detailed regulations within the limits of the above regulations. The regulations in paragraph 12 are valid with reference to its ratification, disputability, and publication. For the capital, Berlin, the regulations of the statutes of December 31, 1838, remain in force up to the estab- lishment of such a statute for Berlin.
Paragraph 16. Against the resolution of the county council the interested party can file a complaint with the circuit council within a limit of twenty-one days. Inste:id of this twenty-one days limited time a time of one week is substituted for the ca.ses dealing with the rebuilding of whole localities that have been totally destroyed by fire or other accident.
Paragraph 17. The rights and duties assigned by paragraphs 5, 8, and 9 to the county committee and in higher resort assigned to the circuit council are carried out in cities of more than 10,000 inhabitants belonging to a county (or if such a city exists among several participating municipalities) by the circuit council and a higher resort by the provincial council, in the city circuits (or if such a city circuit exists (par. 9) among several participating municipalities) by the provincial council and at the petition of the municipality, in still higher resort, by the secretary of commerce. In the lands belonging to the Hohenzollems the official committee is substituted for the county committees and has the right to confirm the local statutes. (Pars. 12 and 15.) The provincial legislature is the court of resort for appeals.
Paragraph 18. Until the circuit committee and county and provincial councils are developed in the various provinces of the Monarchy the circuit government has to take charge of the affairs mentioned in this law. The final decision in higher resort in cases mentioned in paragraphs 5, 8, and 9 falls to the secretary of commerce, and in cases of paragraphs 12 and 15 to the governor. Until a province of Berlin has been formed the secretary of commerce exercises the functions assigned to the circuit committees in paragraphs 5, 8, and 9, and the secretary of the interior must approve the statutes mentionea in paragraphs 12 and 15.
Paragraph 19. All the general and detailed regulations contrary to the provision of this law are hereby invalidated. All regulations of building laws given by the executive officials and all other building p^olice regulations and local statutes that conflict with the regulations of this law are invalidated.
Paragraph 20. The secretary of commerce is commissioned with the execution of this law.
2. BUILDING REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN.
A large number of exceptions and special rules exist, but the following are the main regulations:
In the inner city.
Buildings may cover from two-fourths to five-sixths of the lot and have a maximum height of 20 m. (65 feet 6 inches). U.-^ually they may not exceed the width of the street upon which they front by more than 2 m. (6 feet 6.6 inches).
In the outer city.
(a) In the inner zone. — 1. The residence section: Buildings must have a minimum intervening space of 6 m. (19 feet 7.8 inches); maximum height 18 m. (58 feet 11.4 inches); maximum number of stories, three above the ground story; may be 9 m. on
CITY PLANNING. 51
streets up to 9 m. (29 feet 6.7 inches) wide, otherwise may not exceed the width of the street. Building in groups is permitted under certain regulations; buildings to be used for factories, etc., that are noisy or produce smoke or soot must be erected at least 20 m. (65 feet ^ inches) from the lot boundaries and from the street.
2. The mixed sections: The above regulations as to buildings are in force on streets suited for residences, but factories for any ordinary purposes may be erected at a dis- tance of only 10 m. (32 feet 9 inches) from the lot boundaries and from the street.
3. The factory section: Buildings that contain more than one dwelling may not have more than two stories above the ground story.
(6) In the outer zone. — 1. The residence section: Buildings must have a minimum intervening space of 8 m. (26 feet 2.4 inches); maximum height 21 m. (68 feet 9.3 inches); maximum number of stories, two above the ground story; maybe 9 m. high on streets up to 9 m. (29 feet 6.7 inches) wide, otherwise may not exceed the width of the street; on certain streets only one or two stories above the ground ispermitted; build- ing in groups is permitted with restrictions; buildings to be used tor factories, etc., which are noisy or produce smoke or soot must be erected at least 40 m. (131 feet) from the lot boundaries and from the street; rear buildings may not have more than one story above the ground floor.
2. The mixed section: The number of stories of rear buildings is not restricted if they are not used for dwelling purposes, but they may not exceed 15 m. (49 feet 1.5 inches) in height.
3. The factory section: The buildings that contain more than one dwelling may not exceed more than two stories above the ground floor.
3. BUILDING REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF DU8SELD0RF. [The mansard Is not counted as a story; there are many exceptions for each class.]
Class I. Closed building is permitted. The front building may have three or four stories, with a maximum height of 20 m., and occupy two-thirds of the site; the rear building three stories, not to exceed the width of the courtyard by over 5 m. If not more than two stories above the ground story are erected, not exceeding 10 m. in height, one-fourth of the lot area only need be left vacant. I. Fifty per cent of the site may be built upon.
Class II. Closed building is permitted. The front building may have three or four stories above the ground story, with a maximum height of 16 jn., and occupy one- half or four-tenths of the lot area; rear buildings may have two stories above the ground floor and occupy two-thirds of the lot area.
Class III. Closed building is permitted. Front buildings may have two or three stories above the ground floor, with a maximum height of 16 m., and cover six-tenths of the lot area. Rear buildings may have ground story and two stories, and cover six- tenths of the lot area. III. Same regulations as III (I), but only five-tenths of the lot may be built upon.
Class IV. Under certain conditions closed building is permitted, but no factories may be erected on residential streets if they will inconvenience the neighborhood. IV (A). Buildings may be only two stories above the ground story, and occupy five- tenths of the lot area. Closed building is permitted. IV (B). Buildings may have three stories above the ground stOry, but occupy six-tenths of the lot. IV (B). Same as IV (B) above, but only five-tenths of the lot area may be occupied. IV (C). The limitations on heights of stories of IV (A) is removed, but each story is limited to two families.
Class V. Residential districts with open building. Buildings close together may not be more than two stories above the ground story, and the maximum height is 13 m., and may not cover more than four-tenths of the lot area. They must have an open space of 4 m. between them. V (A). Same as V, but 50 per cent of the lot area may be covered. VI (A). Residential streets with open buildings far apart. Building may have two stories above the ground story, three stories on corner lots, with a maxi- mum height of 16 m., and four-tenths of the lot area may be built upon. VI (B). Same as ^'I (A), but buildings may be three stories above the ground story in all cases, and three family houses may be erected.
Class WII. Business streets.— A larger per cent of the lot must be built upon by special permission of the building authorities for business and industrial purposes.
Class IX. Factory streets.— On factory streets the