Asheville daily citizen. [volume] (Asheville, N.C.) 1890-1900, 1891-03-26
THE IMPROVEMENT BILL.
1T Is FURTHER CONSIDERED
AT LENGTH HEREWITH.

AT LENGTH HEREWITH.
This Correspondent 10 In Favor Of
improvements If Done ny a sys-
tenn of Ad valOreim Taxation
Now, what DO You Say to ThatP |
[For the sake of bringing assertion and |
comment closely together we have taken the |
liberty of inserting THR CITIzRs's views on |
he points raised in this letter. one by one as |
they come up. Of course our correspondent |
il responsible only for what 10 outside Of the |
bracelets and THE CITIZEN only for what is
inside Of thcm.]
EDITOR THE CITzEN:-l have read with |
some care the bill known as "An Act to
amend the charter OF the City of Ashe-
ville," and l think it Objectionable in
many particulars. First, it is class legis-
lation, not for the classes as against the |
masses, but vice-vcrsa, and the truth OF
the business is that there has been such
hue and cry against class legislation that
things havegonc to the opposite extreme,
like "the erect Indian, so straight that
he leans away back"
The advocates Of the bill say: at is not
forced upon you; you can vote it or not,
as you like" Let's see how that is.
What proportion of the voters of Ashc-
vile are property-owners that will be
effected by this burdensomc tax? hardly
think one-third then there are two thirds
to reap he benefit, in one way or ranother,
a goodly number only in getting work, il
the improvements are made, and not hav-
ing to pay a cent of course vote zap
proval," and the one-third are left in a
wociul minority. This part OF it is but
they say after the bill is passed upon that
then it is only put in operation where
majority ask tor it. We can find no
such provision in the bill.-ED. CITIZEN.
Does not the game trouble come
in here? ls it not likely that
about the same proportion against
property owners would be petitioners
i to have been fair should it not have
been limited to the vote Of the property
owners' Certainly not. If you are a
renter, for instance, you help to pay for
the paving in the increased rent and
therefore should have something to say
about the passage OF the bill.-ED. CrTl.
ZEN.
Then it is unequal taxation and une-
quail taxation is unjust taxatiOns. 1t is
unequal i'll this way: The Requirement
arc that every one shall pay our third
the expenses of the paving on his front
age, regardless OF valuation. One man
may have frontage Of one hundred feet,
while another has but TWENTY-FIVE and
yet the latter is worth ten times as much
as the other, while it pays only one
fourth the tax. You pay tor what you
get at cost. What has the value of
lot to do with the cost OF paving the
street in front of it ED CITIZEN.
Then how are things to be made equal
as to the money expended and street
work already done? There has been
many thousand dollars paid and one or
two hundred thousand outstanding. Are
the parties who, under this BILL are to
do the balance of city improvements to
have rebate on that already paid out
to be released from any part in the pay
ment Of unpaid bonds. WHY should
they That paving already done is in
the centre Of the city where all use it
ED. CITIZEN.
This contract as between the city and
property owner seems to me misleading.
The city says you pay one-third, your
city will do the balance Well, this looks
fair; you and your neighbor perform
your part of the contract; you are very
soon waited upon, however, by the city
tax collector and he says your property
has been assessed at $4,000 and want
Sl23 from you and like amount from
your neighbor opposite. For what ?"
says you. why to finish paving
that onc-third of your frontage
that the city promised you it would
do. And the worst of it is that
while you get your own amount paid up
in five years, the city continues to collect
that $4,000 (and very possibly more)
each year until the expiration of twenty
years, when the bonds are due.
Right here comes in the inquiry: "Why
were not these bonds to run but for FIVE
years or else the property owners allowed
the full beueht OF the twenty years time?"
The amounts they will be forced to pay,
so proratcd, would have been much
lighter on many than asst is. OF course,
those desiring could have paid at any
time they saw tit. Are there not great
many who will not be able to meet the
requirements of this bill? Say a party
has an unimproved lot from which he
1 I Nd hn. n,
How is he to pay for this work? If it is
a 100 foot front lot, the paving will cost
him about $3.50 month for six years
EDITOR CITIZEN But you say, let hin
, mortgage it. Suppose it is already mort
gagged tor all it will bear. Now comes il
another trouble. OF course, in cases O
this kind, land am sure there will b.
many of this kind) the only other alter
native will be for the city to do the work
' Then where is the security, the propert,
already mortgaged to it's value? /
must unquestionably result in our pa vim,
our own fronts and indirectly that OF al
such cases. Is there any liberality il
that part OF the bill as to delinquents
they may be so tor one cause or another
to be presumed. generally from necessity
You are to pay, sir, without delay;
not, in thirty days then you are not t.
have the benefit of the FIVE years time
but your installments all become due an
your property sold forthwith. But the
you are given whole year to redeem
in by paying only 20 per cent. We ar
not going to be satisfied with per ccnj
If the legislature did think it usurou
rate, nor will put up with the banker
= per cent. per month. Twenty per cen
R or your lot goes
| find nothing in the entire bill abou
:. requiring any bonds for proper care {
, this little insignificant sum Of 500, ,00t
All administrators, guardians and di
bursing officers of state and county al
required to make bonds for the faithf
handling of all money coming into the
hands. but here is an exceptional cas-
Suppose the banks decline to take upo
themselves the trouble and responsible
of handling this fund is stipulated the
are to have no compensation for i
Then it is lett in the hands of a lew aide
men and the city treasurer and mayor.
ED. CIrlzEN. who, assuming that tho
are strictly honest, are not accustom,
.s, to handling such sums. Men can
IL, elected who are.-ED. CITIZEN. 1t is {
unbusiness-like arrangement certainl
sh and have we not quite recently suffer,
from having the proceeds of some Of o
- outstanding bonds used in contracts al
where no or insufficient bonds we're /