Section 10-A210. FISCAL CHANGES

 

210.1When the District received limited Home Rule in 1973, it incurred a variety of cost burdens, including the responsibility for providing many services that are typically provided by states. Revenue restrictions also were imposed, including the inability to impose a “commuter tax” on income earned in the city by non-residents. The result of these burdens and restrictions has been a financial “structural imbalance” that persists to this day. A 2002 report by the federal General Accounting Office estimated that the imbalance exceeded $470 million a year. 210.1

 

210.3The imbalance is amplified by the large amount of land in the city that is owned by the federal government and therefore not subject to property tax. Indeed, 53 percent of all land in the District is non-taxable, and more than two-thirds of the income earned in the District cannot be locally taxed. 210.2

 

210.3One outcome of the imbalance is that District residents and businesses face the highest tax burden in the nation. Another is that major investments in infrastructure and capital improvements have been deferred. The District has hesitated to cut services, raise taxes or incur more debt, and instead has sought other remedies to reduce the imbalance. 210.3

 

210.4One of these remedies has been to “grow” the population of the District of Columbia. A well-publicized target of adding 100,000 residents to the city’s population was set in 2003, motivated in part by a desire to boost the number of taxpaying residents. The District has also worked to increase the income of current residents, which can in turn lift families out of poverty, generate tax revenues, and reduce social service costs. A key component of improving the city’s fiscal health as well as the economic prosperity of its residents is to increase the number of employed residents and thus the economic and tax base of the city. 210.4

 

210.5Fortunately, economic growth in the city has helped improve the District’s fiscal standing, at least in the short term. A decade ago, the District was on the brink of bankruptcy. The situation has improved markedly, in part as a result of actions taken by the Government of the District of Columbia. Despite the optimistic forecasts of the Comprehensive Plan, there is no guarantee that this good fortune will last. Prudent action is needed to avoid problems should future downturns take place. 210.5

 

210.6The District’s fiscal situation will continue to influence land use and economic development choices. It is currently driving the redevelopment of large former federal sites with tax-generating uses, creation of new retail centers that reduce the “leakage” of sales tax dollars to the suburbs, and development of high-income, high-density housing downtown and elsewhere. Such efforts may reduce the imbalance but are unlikely to eliminate it. The most effective strategies will combine revenue-raising strategies with strategies to break the cycle of poverty in District neighborhoods. 210.6

 

notation

The provisions of Title 10, Part A of the DCMR accessible through this web interface are codification of the District Elements of the Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital. As such, they do not represent the organic provisions adopted by the Council of the District of Columbia. The official version of the District Elements only appears as a hard copy volume of Title 10, Part A published pursuant to section 9a of the District of Columbia Comprehensive Plan Act of 1994, effective April 10, 1984 (D.C. Law 5-76; D.C. Official Code § 1 -301.66)) . In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions accessible through this site and the provisions contained in the published version of Title 10, Part A, the provisions contained in the published version govern. A copy of the published District Elements is available www.planning.dc.gov.