Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1872-04-26
oRCEsTER
FRIDAY. APRIL ae. 1879.
The sewer Asscssmen1.

vi GNINuots toI uutluluS INT eNNSio1 AN9s ~
naturally, been discussed and criticised. The
wiSest and most carefully considered system Of
assessment possible might not escape criticism;
but it would and the test OF criticism and gain
by discussion. In the preseIt case, the matter
has been embarrassed and made difficult by the
policy which has postponed the assessment from
year to year, and by lack of practical wisdom
in the attempts to devise a system of assessment
and to secure special legislation on the subject
No use has been made of the wisdom learned
by other municipalities, although Boston and
Providence with their valuable experience are
close at hand. The cost of the sewers has been
made exuavagaut, by lack of careful business
management; but, If the assessments had be-
gun early and kept pace with the building of
the sewers, public criticism might have checked
unthrifty management and enforced a wiser
method of proceeding.
But we propose to speak, now, chiefly of the
assessment which has been adopted by the pres
emf board Of mayor and aldermen. We think
ii unfortunate that The system they have chosen
could not have been brought to public atten-
ton before it was adopted; for, we are sure
that it would have been wholly changed or
greatly modified, If it could have been criticised
and discussed. Not many people in the city,
we presume, had imagined the possibility of
such system Of assessment before it was
adopted and made public. In our Judgment,
this system is illegal, unjust, fanciful,
and arbitrary. That estates benefited by
use of the sewers should pay some portion of
the cost of building them, is reasonable; and
the assessments, to be equitable, must be regu-
lated by due regard to the benefit received. In
Boston and Providence, the assessments
are made in the form of charges for enter
ing the sewers This method is simpler
and more equitable than any other we
have heard suggested. We called attention to
it early in January, and our opinion in favor of
1T remains unchanged 1t could be made more
convenient 10 the people, as well cs more Just;
for the assessment in each case for entering the
sewer could be paid at once, or remain as lien
on the estate, the owner paying interest on it
annually or semi-annually, until he shall find it
convenient to pay it.
A fundamental defect in the system adopted
by the mayor and aldermen, relates to what is
signfed by "bene6t derived from the sewers"
The purpose of sewers, in city, is to drain
houses and other buildings. The city must
have such drainage, and must require owners
of houses and other buildings to connect them
with the sewers, in order that il may continue
habtable, and not become hot bed of ma
laria and disease; therefore, the sewers are
chi,fy general benefit to the city, and must
be SO considered in providing for the expense of
building them. But drainage is, also, special
benefit to each house, shop, or store, of which
proper account can be taken by assessments for
entering the sewers. As a rule it is not the
lots that need drainage, but the houses or other
buildings standing on them. Therefore, in this
case, to assess the lots without regard to build
ing, or, rather, with entire disregard of the
presence or absence of buildings, is unreasona-
bic and unjust.
Look at one of the questionable operations of
the proposed system. In some part of the city,
we may suppose, one man has lot with
block of five houses on it, and needs to enter
the sewer five times. His neighbor opposite has
a lot precisely similar on which there is but one
house, the vacant portion of his lot not being
required Tor houses, at present, although houses
are likely to be built on it, few years hence
Why should these men be taxed precisely alike
to-day, for "bene6t derived from the sewer?"
Should the entries to the sewer be assessed, the
assessment would be proportioned to the
benefit received; and its application
to the future houses could be made whenever
they shall be constructed Again; one man
owns a lot on which is a small house occupied
by a small family. On smaller lot near this
stands a shop or factory, which needs drainage
for its business and for the one hundred or two
hundred persons employed in it. What equity
or reason is there in any assessment which
makes the owner of the small house pay more
than the owner of the factory? No such injustice
would be possible, if we could learn from the
experience OF others, aud from manifest reason,
to assess eutries to the sewers.
The classification of estates made by the
mayor and aldermen, in arranging the assess
ment, had a good intention; it came from a
sense Of the injustice of not apportioning the
assessment TO the benefit derived from using
the sewer; but, it fails to realize this good in
tention, and really operates to cause additional
injustice. We can not here, undertake to ex-
anime it in detail, and will notice only one or
two particulars. Take the three last classes on
the list, III which are included the lots valued at
$3.50, $3.50, and Sc 50 per foot, on which the
assessments are three, two ana a half, and two
per cent The assessment on 2000 feet of land
valued $3.50 per foot, at three per cent, is $40;
on 2000 feet valued at $3.50 per foot, S275; and
on 200 feet valued at sc so pl foot, $780, that
is 10 say, the assessment on a lot valued al
$1,000 is ten dollars more than that on a lot
nj no cis nd = 1 Aro
assessments proportional TO anything, or regu-
lated by any principle whatever?
The assessment now made is final, if it is
valid. II caunot, we suppose, be revoked and
withdrawn because it fats to give satisfaction to
the public, or because some better plan is now
suggested, or for any other reason except that
il is void, because based upon erroneous princi-
pies and so not a valid execution of the author
ity gwen to the mayor and aldermen by the
sewer act. II they have exercised their dscre-
ton within the limits of their authority, their
action is conclusive and final, subject only 10
revision by jury in the case of any person
who thinks himself aggrieved by it. Butt the
assessment is invalid, in whole or IN part, by
reason oil irregularity in principle Or detail, the
error can of course be repaired by a new assess
ment This conclusion would seem necessarily
TO follow from the statement that the authority
given by the starute had not been executed If
the mayor and aldermen have not done what
the sewer act authorized them to do, but have
tried TO 60 instead something else, for which
they had no authority, their power under the
act remains ummpaired; the Unauthorized act is
void a nullity, and they are still at liberty to
do what they should have done at first-make
legal assessment. But without resortine to this
implied authority, the additional act concerning
sewers and drains in the city Of Worcester 81
oh. 854, gives express authority for a reassess.
menf in case the first should prove invalid.
Section Of that act reads:
"Eyery such assessment upon any real estate
which is Invalid by reason OF any error or irreg.
ulaiity IN the making thereof and which has
NOT been paid or has been recovered back, may
be Temade by the mayor and aldermen Of said
city for the time being, 10 the amount for which
the original assessment ought TO have beer
made"
Whether the present assessment is invalid il
"A ouacffon ~ ortaf fptaroef aud fpnnoFfa urp 10