of this site for its historic value. I believe you stated that this is being given serious consideration, is that right, Mr. Moyer?

Mr. MOYER. Yes. sir,

Mr. SISK. In line with the previous use, I believe referred to by several witnesses, as 133 years of continuous use. I was interested in what ways you would suggest to preserve it to permit it to be continued for use as such?

Mr. MOYER. The Commissioners would like to explore this with representatives of the National Park Service and the National Capital Planning Commission. But our studies so far indicate that the area is such that it is not feasible to reestablish a market there because of modern parking problems, because of the tremendous expenses involved in meeting the standards of health and of safety which would be required to bring the building up to standards in order to operate as a market.

Conceivably there might be much less expense involved in setting up the building as somewhat of a museum or something of that nature. Mr. SISK. The point I was getting at, if it is preserved as a historic site, why naturally it cannot be sold. There will have to be certain upkeep and certain maintenance on the area. Now as I understand, the proposal here would be to actually make it self-supporting. In fact just roughly figuring and using the same figures that are used at Western Market with reference to the stands and the stands that would be available here, a revenue of some $1,200 to $1,500 a month, certainly just on a quick calculation, would be available in the way of a rental, and I just do not quite follow you.

If we are desirous of maintaining it for its historical background importance—and I believe in doing this kind of thing-it seems to me that nothing would be finer than to permit its continued use in line with the past 100 to 150 years of use, and at the same time secure an income of say $1,000 or $2,000 a month.

I just do not understand. I do not follow your thinking as to why You would oppose this. I want to ask you this. Now you mentioned the parking. Is the parking situation in this area any more troubleme or does it afford any greater problems than parking anywhere eise in the District of Columbia?

Mr. MOYER. Well, there is a parking problem here

Mr. SISK. There are parking problems all over town I would say. Thappen to live in the District, and I am generally familiar with the arking problems, so that is nothing new. I think we can say that. I would not rate that as being extremely important. I was wonderg is that the prime consideration that you have for not wanting it to be used as a market?

Mr. MOYER. No, parking is not the prime consideration, nor is the expense involved, although the expense would be substantial. But the Commissioners feel, as indicated in their statement on page 4, they do not feel that the public need is such that they should compete with private enterprise in that area. They feel that private enterprise the things which the market would supply them with, and they do not the Georgetown area is supplying the people of that area with all

feel that it is appropriate that they compete with private enterprise

y establishing a market.

Mr. SISK. Of course I do not quite agree with your interpretation here. It would be my understanding that the merchants are people or caterers, as was indicated by one individual; they would not be any different than any other kind of competition. I think in almost every city across the country, and I know it is true in my own hometown, we have markets afforded for farmers and other individuals of this type, and I have never found that merchants generally oppose them. In fact, we have had represented here this morning, of course on behalf of some of these citizens associations, apparently a broad interest in the area.

Do you know of anyone that is opposing the reestablishment of this market, if it could be done in an equitable way, on the basis af the fact that it is going to hurt business?

Mr. MOYER. No, Mr. Chairman. It is just on the Commissioners' part. They feel that there is private enterprise providing these things now in this area, and they do not feel that they should be in business in competition with private enterprise.

Mr. SISK. I do not understand, as least as I understand the legislation, that the Commissioners would be in business. What we are doing is providing a facility, which I think is not uncommon across the country, for people who wish to pay a reasonable rental fee to engage in a business, if that type of business is desired in the area and if there is sufficient patronage. I just do not quite follow your argument right here.

Mr. McCALLISTER. Mr. Chairman, if I may, sir?

Mr. SISK. Yes.

Mr. McCALLISTER. You have been told the rental rates of various markets. There markets are not all operated on the same basis. The Western Market is now sold. It was operated by the District of Columbia, by the Weights, Markets, and Measures division or branch of the Department of Licenses and Inspections. The District of Columbia hired employees who operated the market who opened it each morning and closed it each night and swept it out, and it takes at least two, preferably three, employees to operate, regular Government employees.

There is the matter of maintenance, repair, painting, and all of the other things.

It is proposed that the District of Columbia will, in like manner, reestablish the Georgetown Market and operate it as such. As a result the Western Market has lost money consistently for years, just on the basis of what it costs to operate it, compared with what it was collecting in rentals, plus the fact that it has been operated with fewer employees than it should have been, in contemplation of it being closed

up.

The Eastern Market is leased to a single individual. All expenses of all kind are paid by the occupants, the tenants, in one way or another. Rental to the District is clear revenue. The renewal of that lease is under consideration and study now and recommendation of the National Capital Planning Commission was requested by the Board of Commissioners. It is a successful going business, but it does not require District operation.

Now, we have some figures here that if this market was sold, this old Georgetown Market, and put on the market, the rental would have

to be about $7.08 a square foot, if you take into consideration the capital investment and profit and expense and depreciation; and, if it was operated by the District of Columbia on a commercial basis, because of the higher cost of operation to Government, we estimate $9.66 a square foot.

The occupants of the Western Market have been paying approximately $2.70 a square foot when the market is not operating at a profit, merely on the basis of everyday expenditures without regard to the fact that it sold for $3,020,000. These are the other reasons.

I am sure that Mr. Dripps here, who has been responsible for the operation of this Western Market, could enlighten you further as to what was there and what had to be done and what should have been done, what potential expenses there were, and what is involved in the operation of a market by the District of Columbia as distinguished from renting a property for someone else to operate it as such.

Mr. SISK. Well, the Chair does not wish to consume all the time. These other gentlemen here are quite interested. Having done a quick calculation, and based on the language of the legislation, I would not in any sense agree with you that this could not be made completely feasible as an operation at a price that the farmers and merchants could easily afford and that could be easily amortized over a period of time well within the limitations of normal financing.

I am sorry, based on your own value of this property, I would totally disagree with your analysis of the economics involved. But I would like to recognize the gentleman from Minnesota, because we are getting short on time, for any questions.

Mr. NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Moyer, you mentioned parking facilities. Now there has been a report to me that there are limited parking facilities, in a parking lot that is right across the street. So your statement is not exactly accurate when you say there is no parking, because there is some parking. It may be limited, but there is some parking. I would like to pursue the point that obviously the Commissioners feel that there is some merit to restoring the market for its historic value, is that not true?

Mr. MOYER. That is right. The Commissioners are exploring that idea.

Mr. NELSON. The cost of restoration certainly is extensive. I have examined these pictures and apparently the building is in disrepair. The roof is bad. The walls are bad. The foundation is bad. But it has gone into disrepair under the management of the District of Columbia government. So it would seem to me that if you intend to restore it for its historic value, certainly the building must be safe to permit people to be in it. The cost of restoration, whether it be used for its historic value or as a market, it would not be substantially great, because the building must be a safe building. It would seem to me that as far as the private enterprise idea is concerned, the farmers are pretty much private enterprise. I do think the historic value needs to be taken into account.

If we add the cost of repair to the cost of operation, it would be way out of hand, I understand."

I have no further comment to make other than to point these things out. Now if we do provide for the restoration as a historic building

and open it to the public it has to be safe. It will have to be maintained. Someone will have to sweep it out whether the building is used for historic reasons or whether it is used as a market. The costs are there anyway.

I have no further comment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BROYHILL. Let me follow through on what the gentleman from Minnesota is saying and ask this question. Mr. Moyer. Had this building been owned by private enterprise during the past 30 years since it has been used other than for market purposes, would the District Commissioners or the District government have required better maintenance of the building and better repair, or is this consistent with how you would let private enterprise let a building run down? I ask this because there has been a great deal of criticism about the maintenance of buildings, as you know, by landlords here in Washington, and the enforcement of the building codes. Is this the type of condition that you would permit the privately owned buildings to get into, so to speak?

Mr. MOYER. Mr. Broyhill, I would like to ask Mr. Dripps to answer the question at length, but my understanding is for the use that is now being put in the building, that is a small portion of it is being used for an auto parts enterprise, that the section which is being used is in compliance with District regulations. The parts of the building that are not being used are in disrepair. They would be the parts which would have to be repaired if this were turned into a market. Mr. BROYHILL. I will then ask that Mr. Dripps answer the question further. But as I understood your answer, if this building were owned by free enterprise, it would be in compliance today for the purpose for which it is actually being used. You would require nothing else, Mr. Dripps?

Mr. DRIPPS. If the building-this is not an easy question to answer. It is not possible frankly to give you an answer that is clear and direct, because of the changing regulations, and the fact that certain regulations are retroactive while others are not.

Generally speaking this building at this moment would be about on the borderline of compliance. In any case, I am going to have to continue to examine the building in the future, to determine whether the present deterioration will continue to a point that it will be necessary for action to be taken. At this moment the building is about at the stage where orders would have to be served on it. It is in pretty foul shape.

Mr. BROYHILL. Then again, as Mr. Nelsen pointed out, whether you make this into a market or continue it in its present form, you would have to do something by way of repair and maintenance, would you not?

Mr. DRIPPS. Something will have to be done to the building within the near future.

Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. McCallister made the observation that the property would have to rent for around $9 a foot to be economically feasible.

Mr. McCALLISTER. As a commercial enterprise.

Mr. BROYHILL. I would agree with that statement insofar as value per square foot of this building in Georgetown is concerned. I think what you are overlooking, Mr. McCallister, is the fact that

you are taking advantage of the appreciated land value over the period of years. That is sound economics. But this property was conveyed to Georgetown and to the District of Columbia for the purposes of a farmers' market, and not to speculate with, or as a source of profit by appreciation.

I think you are doing your job by stating what you think the value is and what the District of Columbia could afford to rent it for, but it was not given to you to speculate with but only to contribute to the community as a farmers' market. So I do not think that those economic factors are as valid as if you had bought the property and were entitled to profit on it because of its appreciation.

So I think that those factors can properly be toned down a little, in the consideration of whether we can restore this property for use as a farmers' market.

Mr. MCCALLISTER. I will not debate the subject with the Congressman, of course. However, you have heard testimony that the market ceased to exist as such in about 1935. It was because the market no longer flourished in the open market as such. However, it did persist as a place at which food was sold, particularly meat markets, one operator having the entire premises. This leasing went on for some years. Finally, historically-and I have a voluminous file on it— the Corporation Counsel recommended to the Commissioners that the property be used for other than a market, since it was no longer used as a market, and there was difficulty in finding even a tenant to occupy it, in which to sell food, that the property be used for other than a market for a period of 15 years in order to establish a legal premise of adverse possession by which the District could then go into court and set aside the provision in the deed requiring that it be used as a market. And so it has been leased for nearly 18 years as an automobile parts place. This was all done deliberately and is part of the chronological history of the property.

The recent decision with respect to landmarks came into the picture quite recently, and up until that time it was the position of the Commissioners and has been for some 18 years that it would be sold in the open market to the highest bidder as required by the statute.

Mr. SISK. Just before we conclude, as I understand your statement then, that this was a deliberate thing, you deliberately placed it in a category to attempt to try to clear the deed.

Mr. McCALLISTER. Yes, sir.

Mr. MOYER. Yes.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say one word. There has been testimony from a couple of witnesses here about the Bethesda Market, the farmers' market. My understanding is that the Bethesda Market is not a city-owned market, that that is owned by private people who rent it to farmers.

Mr. SISK. Well, of course, my concern goes to some extent to the point that the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Broyhill, touched on, going back to the original intent and to the original deed, and the purposes for which this problem was actually set aside and dedicated to

at that time.

To me it places it outside the category of your interpretation of a so-called city-owned-or-operated market. If a procedure could be followed-and as I understand the latitude here with reference to