Distraught District

Confronted with continual Congressional opposition to a home rule bill for the District of Columbia, President Johnson has now made his own proposal to replace the city's present three-man Board of Commissioners. The measure differs significantly from traditional home-rule proposals, which would give Washington citizens the right to elect their own city government.

Under the President's scheme, he would appoint a single commissioner and a nine-man council. Johnson has also promised to introduce a constitutional amendment to give the District a voting member in the House and "such additional representatives in the House and Senate as Congress from time to time may provide."

The objectives of both proposals--to streamline the government and to provide congressional representation--are reasonable. Unfortunately, the President's plan to remake the city's local government may do more harm than good by permanently killing the chances of a genuine home-rule bill. The President's executive order will go into effect 60 days after it reaches Congress unless either house votes to disapprove it, and the danger is that this measure will be accepted as an adequate substitute.

D.C. citizens have every reason to want complete home-rule. Self-government at the local level is a fundamental right which should not be denied 800,000 citizens. A locally elected mayor and city council would be better informed and more responsive to the needs of the District than an appointed council. Moreover, the President's plan would not free District government budgets from control by the Southern-dominated House District Committee and the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. The appointed council would still be faced with the meager appropriations that have stymied efforts to solve some of the city's most pressing problems, including the need for better education and welfare services.

The arguments are overwhelmingly in favor of home rule. What killed it during the last session and may smother it again this year is public indifference. A few national organizations--the AFL-CIO, ADA, and the League of Women Voters--lobbied for home rule, but not vigorously. Except for the NAACP, the national Negro organizations did not exert grass-roots pressure.

As a result, home-rule opponents had little trouble defeating the bill in the House. They traded on fears that the Negro majority would dominate the city elections and consequently the city government. Or, they raised unfounded doubts that a locally elected mayor and council would show sufficient concern in maintaining the proper character of Washington as The Federal City with all its buildings, employees, and interests.

They had a powerful ally in the Metropolitan Board of Trade, which virtually controls the city through its influence and dealings with the House District Committee, and does not wish to lose its control. Moreover, the businesses represented on the Board of Trade fear a rise in local taxes--among the lowest in the area--if a local government raised its budget in order to improve schools and welfare services.

The Board of Trade sensibly favors D.C. representation in Congress because it can deal easily with Congress-men and because any sort of representation would relieve pressure for home rule. It is now up to home-rule supporters to extend their fight beyond the city's boundaries and arouse enough national concern to force a hesitant Congress to go beyond the President's modest proposals and pass a democratic measure.