3. Difficulty in transferring personnel from an outlying branch with free parking to a Downtown location is caused by the lack of convenient parking at reasonable rates. There is no question but that we need more parking spaces in convenient locations and at reasonable prices, if we are to expand and improve our services with the growth and development which we all hope to see in Downtown Washington. The private parking industry has provided many new spaces over the years in the District of Columbia, but the supply has not been able to keep up with the demand. It is my understanding that many other cities faced with a similar problem, have established public parking authorities with the power of eminent domain, and have been able to develop successfully additional parking facilities which more efficiently serve the community. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated to our satisfaction that a public parking agency need not be detrimental to private parking interest. I understand that in Pittsburgh and Detroit, for example, private parking firms have continued to grow and prosper after an extensive public parking program was undertaken. Many cities lease their public parking facilities to private operators, which presumably could be done here. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, it is my belief that the District of Columbia requires a public parking agency with the power of eminent domain, if it is to adequately meet the needs of those who must travel by car to the economic center of the Washington metropolitan region and the heart of this nation's capital. Mr. CASTLEMAN. I would just like to summarize it in saying, however, that we have done the best job we can in serving our customers, in providing 27 branches in addition to the main office, but some banking transactions have to be settled downtown. Our trust services, et cetera, are there, and we are not doing an adequate job of serving our customers, and I do not think other banks in the Washington area are, either. It is just inadequate. The number of spaces that you have heard statistics on are such that it is too expensive and the service is poor. National banks are regarded as one of the bastions of the free enterprise system. I take pride in the fact that we are bankers. Certainly, we do not do anything to hurt free enterprise, but in our opinion the only way this problem can be solved is with a parking authority and with the right of eminent domain. We are convinced it will not hurt the private operators. We think that this has been proven enough. And for that reason we did want to go on record as being in favor of the right of eminent domain in the parking authority. Mr. DowDY. Even if it takes your bank? Mr. CASTLEMAN. Well, we, of course, would not like for it to take our bank, but we do feel, if it is necessary in the public good, if we are going to solve the parking problem in downtown Washington, it is all right. Mr. DOWDY. How many parking spaces do you have within your bank building? with the right of eminent domani. We are convinced it will not hurt They were not building parking spaces at that time in buildings. We have provided, in so far as possible, parking and drive-in facilities in our suburban banks. Mr. Dowdy. Thank you. Are there any questions? Is somebody here for the Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade? Mr. PRESS. May we file a statement? Mr. DOWDY. Yes. Mr. DOWDY. The next is the DuPont Circle Citizens Association. Miss Catherine McCarron, President. Your complete statement will be made part of the record. STATEMENT OF MISS CATHERINE MCCARRON, PRESIDENT, Miss MCCARRON. I am President of the DuPont Circle Citizens Association. I am a fifth generation Washingtonian. Our property was under eminent domain at one time. It does seem to me that everybody under eminent domain is for it until it strikes their own property. We can sit here and say, "If it takes my property, it is all right." I do not feel that way. I do not care whether it is the location of a bank or some other property, if the property is taken they will not be able to attract as much business in their new location as they did in their present location. I want to say another thing. I think it might be well to say this: I think that the Downtown Board of Trade is ridiculous in its attitude, in its statement as to the impact of the riots and the Resurrection City situation on the business in Washington. I do want to let them know that it was not and maybe something like this will separate the wheat from the chaff, and maybe we will attract more business people to come back into the District of Columbia. This is the way Washington used to be. We had people who were concerned, who lived here and did their business here. I do not want to take people out of your district, in Virginia or in Maryland, but I think we have to have more people living here. Thank you. Mr. DowDY. Thank you. (The prepared statement submitted by Miss McCarron reads in full as follows:) STATEMENT OF MISS CATHERINE MCCARRON, PRESIDENT, DUPONT CIRCLE CITIZENS ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. The Dupont Circle Citizens Association, like nearly all civic and business groups in the District of Columbia, strongly favors the solution to the parking problem provided in the bills sponsored by Congressmen Broyhill, Mathias and McMillan. It is our understanding that the Board of Trade is divided on this issue with the immediate past President, Leonard B. Doggett, Jr. head of the Doggett Parking Lots on our side of the issue. He enjoys strong support. The commuting public from Maryland and Virginia is interested in parking, and we doubt if they would know the difference, if polled, between the above bills and the Tydings-Sisk measure. We feel sure however, they would support the bills introduced by the men they have repeatedly return to Congress. The Broyhill-Mathias-McMillan proposal on parking is actually based on the study initiated by President Eisenhower in 1960. He requested the Bureau of the Budget to have a study made of parking in the District of Columbia. The General Services Administration made the study. It calls on the Federal Government to provide parking for Federal employees in the same way that a private employer provides parking for the employees of his firm. The Broyhill-Mathias-McMillan plan contains several features which should be supported. For instance, in H.R. 15083, by McMillan, there is a requirement that the fees be set at a figure which will amortize the entire cost of the parking facilities. This feature will ensure that parking facilities will not be overbuilt, and that they must pay their own way. In a Congress concerned with rising costs and a staggering national debt, it is unwise to embark on a program such as the Tydings-Sisk bills costing perhaps millions of dollars. The Tydings-Sisk bills would require acquisition of land selling at $150 a square foot in the vicinity of Woodward and Lothrop and Hecht's and $200 a square foot near Connecticut Avenue. This huge cost plus the cost of the improvements on the land. It may quite possibly be that the huge costs of the land assembly is the reason for eminent domain in the Tydings-Sisk bills; the Broyhill-Mathias-McMillan bills would avoid this huge cost by building parking on, under, and over Federally-owned land. It is obvious that public, drive-in parking garages built on land costing $150-$200 a foot cannot pay for themselves. The cost of land acquisition, improvement acquisition, plus the cost of new construction would result in another scheme calling untold amounts from the taxpayers. The present high costs of present downtown parking is directly related to the high taxes of this area. Taxes have been increased, it has been reported to us, by as much as 500% on some downtown parking lot property. The adoption of the Tydings-Sisk bill would not make these costs disappear; these costs would simply be passed on to the taxpayers. Congress told us the D.C. Stadium would pay its own way; so far it hasn't made the first payment on the principle. Why should District citizens as well as the constituents of every Member of Congress pay for parking for such nationally-owned stores with headquarters in other States. These stores are in favor of public parking as provided in the Tydings-Sisk bills. Congressman Broyhill summed this up well at the February 27 hearing when he said, "Frankly, Senator (Tydings), I am amazed that the business community of downtown Washington has thrown up its hands and admitted that free enterprise cannot solve their problem. They say they need the right of eminent domain, but they want more than that." Under the TydingsSisk bills, parking meter revenues as well as garage parking fees would be directed to paying off bonds used for acquisition and construction. This means Congress would have to appropriate money for the special highway fund now obtained from parking meter revenue. In conclusion, we agree completely with Congressman Broyhill when he says: "I do not think we should just help the business interests of the District of Columbia, and not the other people. By doing this, we would provide additional competition for our business people in the community by granting someone a subsidy, or a guarantee, or whatever you want to call it, and by so doing we would be derelict in our responsibilities." We can only express our amazement at the zeal with which Senator Tydings has pursued the objective of building up competition in the District of Columbia for the stores in Maryland, and for the business community which has supported him. DUPONT CIRCLE CITIZENS ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. RESOLUTION ON ΤΑΧΑΤΙΟΝ OF RESIDENTIAL AND SPECIAL PURPOSE LAND USED COMMERCIALLY WHEREAS, residential or special purpose zoned land can receive a variance for use as a parking lot, and WHEREAS, such use of non-commercial property for commercial purposes reaps a financial benefit to operating businesses of this type, and WHEREAS, such use results in dirt, noise, and unesthetic objects adjacent to residential buildings and WHEREAS, the loss of the difference between residential or special purpose property taxes and commercial property taxes places a burden on residential property owners and discourages restoration particularly in inner city neighborhoods, therefore BE IT RESOLVED, that the Dupont Circle Citizens Association at its regular meeting on October 2, 1967 does hereby request that land used in the foregoing manner be taxed at the prevailing rate for such commercial use, and that copies of this resolution be sent to Commissioner Walter W. Washington and the House and Senate D.C. Committees. CATHERINE MCCARRON, President. Mr. Dowdy. Next is Mrs. Geneva K. Valentine, from the AdamsMorgan Federation. Is anyone present from that organization? (No response.) Mr. DowDY. They may file a statement. Mr. Robert Smith, Executive Board, Washington Metropolitan Chapter, American Institute of Architects, Inc. You may file your statement. STATEMENT OF ROBERT SMITH, EXECUTIVE BOARD, WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN CHAPTER, AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, INC. Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I am filing my statement. I want to say one thing about which we are concerned, the part of H.R. 15083 that does not concern parking at all. Perhaps, I could talk about something other than parking? We are vitally concerned with the part of that bill that would raise the height of buildings 230 feet. We think that this should not be done, except after a great deal of hearings by the Board has been gone through to assure that it is done in a very orderly way. I think that is all I have to say. Mr. ABERNETHY. May I ask one question? Does Mr. Sisk's bill provide the raising of the buildings' heights? (The prepared statement submitted by Mr. Smith reads in full as follows:) Gentlemen, my name is Robert C. Smith, an architect practicing in Washington, D.C. I am here as a representative of the Washington Metropolitan Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, an organization having 576 registered architect members practicing in the Washington metropolitan area. The first paragraph of H.R. 15083 proposes an amendment to the Act of 1910, "An act to regulate the height of buildings in the District of Columbia," which would raise the height limitation on buildings in certain zones of the city to 230 feet and would permit a Floor Area Ratio of 20. It is this portion of the Bill with which we are concerned, and upon which I would like to comment. The Washington Metropolitan Chapter of the American Institute of Architects recognizes that certain changes in the Act of 1910 are needed in order to permit increased flexibility in building design, especially with reference to roof structures. We also recognize the possibility that, at some future date, it may be advisable to modify the maximum height limitation contained in the Act of 1910. We strongly believe, however, that Washington must develop from a coordinated study of many factors-economic, sociological, physical and aesthetic. This study must take into account, among other things, the effects of our changing transportation system. In other words, a comprehensive plan is necessary, if Washington is to perform its functions as the Capital City and as a healthful, beautiful and convenient place to live and work. Such a city cannot evolve by accident; it can only arise out of the painstaking labor of many people representing many different areas of knowledge. A major function of such a plan for the city of Washington should be to preserve those things which give the city its essential character. As the Nation's Capital, planned by l'Enfant, Washington is unique, and its uniqueness should be preserved. An important aspect of Washington's special character is its low profile. For this reason, we believe that any drastic change in the height limit or density of Washington buildings should be made only after careful study. In fixing height and Floor Area Ratio of buildings in various parts of the city, this study will inevitably give serious consideration to such factors as: (1) the need to prevent private buildings from dominating important and historic public monuments, (2) the increased possibilities for moving large numbers of people after the rapid transit system is completed, (3) the visual effect of the skyline as seen from major approaches to the city, and of building heights in relation to streets and open spaces within the city, (4) past and future changes in geographical patterns of working and living in the District of Columbia and the suburbs, (5) measures for preventing undesirable changes in the plan as a result of economic pressures. No study of the kind I have described has been made, and no plan exists to define and limit the areas where the increased building height will be permitted. It is true that H.R. 15083 calls for raising the height limitation in certain zones, but a study of the zoning map indicates that these zones include the entire downtown part of the city plus ribbons running out along Connecticut, Wisconson, Georgia and other avenues. This is not a plan, and we do not believe that the height limitation should be removed in this wholesale and planless fashion. We feel, therefore, that the increase in maximum building height to 230 feet proposed by H.R. 15083 is not advisable at this time. We would like to point out, however, that that portion of the Act of the 1910 dealing with roof structures is in need of revision because present-day requirements for mechanical equipment best located on the roof were not envisioned when the Act was written. We would urge, therefore, that consideration be given to increasing the present height limit of 130 feet measured to parapet line to approximately 150 feet inclusive of all roof structures. Penthouse requirements and all references to street widths in relation to building heights could then be eliminated from the Act. H.R. 15083 also proposes a maximum Floor Area Ratio of 20. The Act of 1910 has never regulated the Floor Area Ratio of buildings. We believe this responsibility should continue as a function of the Zoning Commission of the District of Columbia. We appreciate the opportunity to offer our comments on this Bill. If you have any questions, we will try to answer them. Mr. Dowdy. The next is Mr. John R. Immer, President, Federation of Citizens Associations. Your statement will be made a part of the record. Mr. IMMER. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement that you have stated would be filed. I would like to make a couple comments on what has been said here this morning. STATEMENT OF JOHN R. IMMER, PRESIDENT, FEDERATION OF CITIZENS ASSOCIATIONS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Mr. IMMER. I am John R. Immer, presently the First Vice President of the Federation of Citizens Associations of the District of Columbia. The statement was made by the representative of the Downtown Progress Committee that we had about 13,000 parking places provided now in the commercial parking places, that we have about 9500 in buildings, and we have about 2500 spaces on the streets, and from this he projects that in five or ten years from now, instead, we will have a need for 35,000 parking places, and we will have, he said in his statement to you which I heard a moment ago, only available about 10,000 parking spaces. This is a gross distortion, a misstatement of the figures, because if we have already got 9500 then you have to consider what will happen when they displace the other 13,000. The 13,000 are single-story parking units, and I would venture to say that every building being built today has more parking spaces in that building than you could possibly get on even a two-level parking lot for the entire area that is covered by the building. So, therefore, as you displace the commercial parking spaces, we now have, in most of the buildings that are being planned that you are going to have, an even larger number of parking spaces provided. Therefore, the figures he cited are entirely misleading. |