Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1881-04-10
STREET AssEssMENrs.

STREET AsSEssMENTS.
The Front Foot Plan Regardless OF Bene-
fits Receives q Black Eye.
We print below an opinion of Judge
Simons which will attract great atten-
ton in all States, where by law street i'm
provements are to be paid by assess
ments on property benefited and laid by
board of public works.
The power exercised in making these
assessments, is the taxing power, the
greatest in government, yet here the COM
their own property in any cases, whereas
in general taxation all property ls as
sessed at once
The great objection in the Mackubin
street case, as urged before the board for
months past, was that the law was vlO-
lated by the rule of the board which
made the assessment on fronting property
alone, lying upon the street, regardless of
value, depth, nearness to- the inn
provement, OF any fact whatever
but that Of being on the street.
Thus in this case property half nsias
away from the grading, and on the best
residence street in town, Summit avenue,
was assessed the same amount by the
front foot as property directly on the
grade, and double in value by it, Then
again, lots of small value in the outskirts
of the city, only thirty-three feet
wide, were assessed more than
they were worth in the market
just because of this rule of assessment.
So Western avenue has been assessed,
and numbers of streetsIall over the city.
Judge Simons, by this opinion has, it is
to be hoped, put an end to the violation of
law in the exercise of this vast power CT
taxation, which has to the knowledge of
many of our citizens made the owership
of property burden.
The theory of this law is, that no as
sessment shall ever be burden, but the
market value always raised to at least
the amount of the assessment
Lawyers and real estate owners in most
cities of the Union will read with inter-
est the opinion, which we print in full:
Application is made in behalf of the city of
st. Paul for judgment against certain lots and
parcels of land assessed for grading Mackubin
street, from Dayton avenue to University
avenue in said city.
The owners of the property assessed have
appeared and filed numerous objections to the
recovery OF judgment, among which are the
following, viz:
'Because the Board of Public Works of said
city, in making said assessment, did not con-
slider or determine the benefit to said property,
or to any property, from said improvement, or
appOrtion the benefit as to or upon said prop
erty, or any property whatever"
because said assessment was laid on said
property, and on all property assessed, wholly
regardless of benefit, and upon rule other
than that of benefit"
The above are the only objections shall
consider, as they are sustained by the evidence,
and are, in my opinion, fatal to the right of
the city to Judgment herein.
The fundamental rule laid down by the city
charter is that the expense of improvements
Of this character is to be assessed upon the
property benefited by such improvement
This rule is the pole star by which the city
authorities are to be guided in making as
sessments for grading streets, and any depar
ture therefrom, or the adoption of any other
rule, vitlates the assessment.
The city charter, sec. II, chap. Z, declares
that "It shall be the duty of the Board of Pub
lie Works, in estimating the benefits to any
particular lot, piece or parcel OF land, to take
into consideration the nature of the owners
interest therein, the form and position of their
several parcels of land, the qualified rights of
the owner in reference to the enjoyment, and
any other circumstances which render the
proposed Improvement more or less beneficial
to him or them.'
The evidence shows that in making this as.
sessment the Board of Public Works avowed
ly and purposely abandoned the statutory rule
above stated, and instead thereof adopted the
following course-that is to say: All the
property fronting on the street was assessed a
given sum per front foot and all alike the
whole length of the street regardless of the
position and their distance from the
graded portion of the street, and in this way
the entire cost of the work was made up with
out estimating or considering the special ben
eft that would accrue to any particular lot or
parcel of land from the improvement.
This appears to have been done upon the sole
ground that the rule that property can only be
assessed in proportion to the benefit it re-
eeives from the improvement, is impractica-
BILE, by reason of the time, attention and labor
required to ascertain the amount of such ben
eft and to make such an assessment.
l say these facts appear from the evidence,
and q statement of them is all the argument
required to show the utter invaidity Of the
assessment in question.
1t is claimed on the part of the city that the
Board of Public Works is the exclusive Judge
do w Wndt pTOpcIty ID Ucuchtcu Wy tuC III
provement, and the extent of such benefit
This is true when the Board acts within the
principle peremptorily declared by the statute,
but when it openly abandons that principle
and adopts another, whether from motives of
convenience or otherwise, the case is quite
different
In such case the assessment is without au-
thority of law, and has no validity what
ever
Tha ,,rosant ocSosoroort oonro+ ,,a e,,ato;nod
without establishing precedent in direct op-
position to and subversive of the unquestion-
able rule and policy of the city charter upon
the subject, and upon the grounds above stat
ed, and without passing upon the other points
made by the objectors at the trial, the applica-
tion for judgment herein must be denied, and
it is so ordered.
April 8, 1881.
ORLANDO SIMoNs, District Judge.
New Muslin Underwear.
See it. EsrERLY s. HEINEMAEN.
New Hosiery and Gloves,
To-, 1od;ao and ohiIdron iuef opnpad Now