Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1885-02-24

Two years age, when they began i'm
growing the streets Of Taeosna. IL vas
announced with Rrea, hoarish shst
TIE work sas 10 b done 90 this plan
The cost Of shsI Vas done in frons of
each piece Of property shoold be paid
wholly by that property. The idsa
seemed 20 be that tha work must be
done on 3 different basis from iha,
adopted hsrs. and se we're sloxinRly
and repeatedly assured IN the Ls-fgsr
tha, Il was 70 much better, and 20 much
more insE, than the Seattle method.
They we've told a. the time their method
was wrong. that it bad bees tried here,
and declared in the District ard So
preme Courts Illegal, and that IL would
be 90 declared IN Tssoms IL the prae-
ttee vas continued. IL vas eontinaed
Tor tVO years. and until the other day,
when, the question coming up, the
Council asked the opinion Of its AttDr-
ney, who submitted the folloxins
To tA< Hon. Mayor and Common co.,
eH In answer 10 the question, 1" Can
the city Of Tacoma, under any section
OF the charter, enforce the c1llestioH of
claims for street and 81 evaik improve.
meHts made IN front Of sbuttiug prop
erty r submitted to me By the Com
Ison Council for my opinion thereon, 1
respectfully submit the following:
section rs Of the city charter pre.
seribes means for the enforcement OF
assessments made UPON abuttins PROD
erty fer work done in the improvement
of streets.
Whistler the street assessments as
levied under the provisions Of the char
ter may be enforced, ean bat snsv.r
IN the words of the Supreme Coart of
this Territory. In an opinion rendered
IN the case OF the city Of Seattle W. Yes-
Ter Il Wash. Ter. So, the Snprsme
Court SAYS:
In making SPECIAL assessments upon
property for grading and improving
streets within ths city-the same must
be levied and assessed upon the proper
~ benefited In accordance With the
value Of the same-the whole cost of
the improvement TO be made within the
given district must be ascertained the
property benefited must be determined
aud the value thereof fixed, and when
this has been done the cost of such i'm
provemsnt must be spportioned among
the several lots benefited in the proper
ton which the value Of each lot bears TO
tue value of ALL
% The mIde adopted by the city 10
neither uniform nor in accordance with
the value.
There IL no superintendent az the
cost OF the improvement among the sew
eral lots benefited, but each particular
lot ID made arb trarily - pay the whole
cost OF the grade In front thereof. Lots
already upon the established grade are
not charged with any Of the b0rdens,
while those ON either side which happen
20 be above or below must bear the
whole expense, though no more benefit
ed by the i'm srovement than the Others
such basis Is unequal and unjust. We
therefore reach the conclusion thai the
ordinance of the city making the cost
of the grade in front OF each lot a
charge upon sueh lot is wholly moon
sistent With the provisions of section
1924 of the Revised Statutes, and is
therefore void.n
The mode provided By the city char
ter for making street Improvements and
levyinR assessments for the same is sub
iect TO all of the objections mentioned
IN the above opinion, and so long a. the
decision in the case continues to be the
Law OF the Territory, the collection OF
assessments for street and sidewalk i'm
provements made under the provisions
OF our city charter cannot. In my opin-
ion, be enforced.
IL Is, heweyer, q question whether the
Supreme Court of the Territory will fol-
low the above opinion upon q case com
Ing before it. LoUs ID. CAMPBKLI,
City Attorney.
February Is. 1895.