As it was introduced, the bill required the property to be taken and used for playground purposes. It was proposed to have this property used for playground purposes. The District Commissioners opposed that plan and the Park and Planning Commission opposed it, and so it died. When this bill that is before you now was introduced, it was considered by our Commission, and we were getting along fine with it until we got a report from the Bureau of the Budget saying that it was not in accord with the President's financial policy. I think I can clear up the matter, so far as our Commission is concerned, by reading this letter from Mr. Delano, the chairman of the Commission, to the chairman of this committee, dated April 27, 1939, as follows [reading]: The National Capital Park and Planning Commission, at its meeting April 20, considered H. R. 4582 and your letter of inquiry as to the attitude of the Commission regarding the purchase of this abattoir and stockyard property. After full discussion, the Commission voted that it offered no objection to this bill on condition that when it was enacted into law it provided "That the Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed to acquire on behalf of the United States for public use, at a reasonable price from Federal funds, the abattoir and stockyards property," or better still provide that the amount to be paid the owner of this property be definitely settled by the Committees of Congress and written into the act as finally passed. A year ago the Commission vigorously opposed a bill requiring the Commission to purchase this property out of funds appropriated for the purchase of park, parkway, and playground property, and would vigorously oppose at this time such legislation. As the present bill, however, provides that the Secretary of the Interior shall acquire it for public use from Federal funds, the Commission offers no objections. As to the use of the property, the letter of the Secretary of the Interior indicates the use that the Secretary of the Interior and the Park and Planning Commission had mutually agreed upon. I think the difficulty here is that some of these parcels have been remapped, as they were checked up at different times, in connection with this bill before you and in connection with the former bill. This shows a total of 18.76 acres, and the assessment on the land was $91,956. The assessment on the buildings was $66,200. The CHAIRMAN. As of what date? Mr. SETTLE. About 2 years ago, or 1938-39. That makes a total assessment of $166,969. The CHAIRMAN. That was subsequent to acquiring this piece of property? Mr. SETTLE. That was 2 years ago. I think this will give the committee a general basis for figuring the value of this property. There was a little acrimonious discussion that came up, and I would probably feel the same way if I were on the other side. Now, the Federal Government had no idea of acquiring this property when it opposed the reestablishment of the stockyards, but it was the purpose to keep a nuisance out of the Federal City. It might not be a nuisance in a city like Kansas City where so much other business is built up around stockyards. Of course, the question of whether the Government should buy it is one to be settled by the committee. Mr. CROWE. Of course, they eat in Washington. Mr. SETTLE. Yes, sir; and we drink coffee here, but the coffee is raised in Brazil. The CHAIRMAN: We will now hear from the representative of the Public Buildings Administration. STATEMENT OF E. R. WITMAN, REPRESENTING THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS ADMINISTRATION Mr. WITMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have no comments to make on the merits of the bill. You have before you the report of the Treasury Department, dated March 14, 1939, signed by the Acting Secretary of the Treasury, which answers one question with respect to the possible use of this property. Quoting from the letter The Secretary of the Treasury does not appear to have any duties in connection with the proposed legislation and, since the property proposed to be acquired is not in the area in which the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to acquire lands for Federal buildings, this Department is not in a position to express an opinion as to the merits of the proposed legislation. Since that letter was written, the Federal Works Agency has been created, with the Public Buildings Administration in it. Under date of July 25, 1939, Mr. Carmody, the Administrator of the Federal Works Agency, made this statement in a letter addressed to the Director of the Budget [reading]: The land described in the bill lies in the area of Bennings, District of Columbia, on the east side of the Anacostia River. A 5-year public building program is now being considered for the District of Columbia, but it is our opinion that no project contemplated under that program could be satisfactorily located on the site named in the bill. Accordingly, this Administration would have no interest in the proposed legislation. I know of nothing today which would change the thought as to the use of this land for any possible public building purpose. The CHAIRMAN. Is there anyone else who wishes to be heard? STATEMENT OF WALTER L. FOWLER, ASSISTANT DISTRICT CORPORATION COUNSEL Mr. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, in the absence of the corporation counsel, who is appearing before another committee, I am authorized to come here and merely tell you and the committee that the Commissioners' letter addressed to you represents their opinion as of today. We have no interest in it. If the Federal Government wants to buy this property with Federal money, the District will be perfectly satisfied. We only want to be assured that no amount of the money sball come out of District appropriations. There is one provision in the bill that suggests there may be a time when a portion of the land might be desirable for municipal purposes. It is the opinion of the present Board of the Commissioners that at the present time they see no need for any portion of this property for municipal purposes, and can see no future need of it for municipal purposes. The CHAIRMAN. I assume that they would like to have that particular provision eliminated from this proposed legislation. Mr. FOWLER. That is the opinion expressed by the Commissioners in the communication before you, that the Commissioners see no use for the property for municipal purposes at this time, nor do they see that in the future any portion of it could be used for municipal purposes. If there is any further information you want from the Commissioners, they will be glad to furnish it. The plat that you have before you does not show the condition existing there today. Since that time there has been a good deal of change in that locality. We have recently condemned Minnesota Avenue, which is now a street 90 feet wide, and there has been a great deal of residential development in that locality. There has been a great deal of change through that whole territory that the plat you have does not show. It does not show the actual condition existing at the present time. The CHAIRMAN. Can we get a plat that would indicate the present condition of the area? Mr. FOWLER. A plat of the parcels described in the bill, showing the condition of the area? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Have they taken some of it for street purposes? Mr. FOWLER. I can make up for you an accurate plat showing the full width of Minnesota Avenue, and showing each parcel of land described in the bill. The CHAIRMAN. We would appreciate that. We will now hear the representative from the Interior Department. STATEMENT OF FRANK T. GARTSIDE, REPRESENTING THE INTERIOR DEPARTMENT Mr. GARTSIDE. Mr. Chairman, the Interior Department has reported to your committee on this bill, H. R. 4582, and has advised the committee that this proposed legislation is not in accord with the President's program; so we are precluded from recommending favorable action on it. The CHAIRMAN. Aside from the financial angle, are there any observations you wish to make? Mr. GARTSIDE. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. We will now hear the representative of the National Park Service. STATEMENT OF LOUIS F. FRICK, REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Mr. FRICK. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Settle made a statement to the effect that $166,000 represented the assessed value of this property. I think Mr. Settle forgot that four parcels across the road, or across the Bennings Road, are left out in the agreement with the representatives of the Gobel Co. Those parcels having been left out, would bring the assessment down to $142,000. Mr. SETTLE. I am glad you called attention to that. Mr. CROWE. Are we to understand that that is the assessed value of this property? Mr. FRICK. Yes, sir; $142,000. Four parcels on the other side of Bennings Road were left out of the bill by mutual agreement. Mr. CROWE. There is a total of 18 acres? Mr. FRICK. It is 17 acres, I believe. Mr. SETTLE. These assessments change from year to year. May I suggest that Mr. Frick check up the last assessment? Mr. FRICK. I checked it this morning. The CHAIRMAN. If there is nothing further, the committee will stand adjourned. (Thereupon the committee adjourned.) |