The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1892-12-22

tcrmtne what pOfIlOn, III any ~ t"t VI
pense ought 20 be paid from the public
treasury and what portion by the owners
of the real estate benefited: ard further
10 determine and direct that the whole
expense be assessed upon the owners OF
real estate benefited thereby.
"such Is the effect OF the first clause OF
said section. while the second clause i'm
poses certain conditions precedent essen
tial TO the valid exercise Of the rights
and powers conferred by the first one.
The plain meaning Of the requirements
Of the 18th section OF the charter Is, that
improvements such as are contemplated
in the first clause, II petitioned for. may
be declared e%xpedient and an ordsr MADE
for their construction. But In tn absence
Of such petition, three things are os- entail
to the validity OF q local assessment for
any such public Improvement.
First. that the Councils shall. by a
majority vote. etc. declare the improve
mcnt to be cSpedient.
Second. that notice shall be published
for twenty days In two or more news
/ papers. etc.
Third. that by q MAJ rity vote OF all
the members elected to each Council.
after the two preceding requirements,
shall order and determine that the i'm
provement be made.
1t is not enough that the Councils de-
clared the Improvement TO b. expedient,
and gave notice Of that resolution By
publication. IT is essential that notice
be giyen by the required publication that
the expense Of the contemplated local
Improvement IS 70 be dcfrayDd. IN whole
or I'm part, by n local assessment uron
the owners of the lands TO b. benefited
thereby. In the present case. the mode
Of dcfraying the expense of the improve
ment was the subject Of municipal legs
latiOn, and the matter Of prime import
ance to those for whom the notice was
intended: for, by the mere notice OF the
fact that the Councils had resolved that
the Improvement was ~expedicnt. the local
owners were not put on their guard and
warned to protect their interests, as they
would have been by notice that they
were 10 be assessed with and required to
pay the whole expense of the improve
ment.
Moreover. II is a well-settled principle,
that was intended by said section = or
the city charter TO be recognized and
respected, that all those whose rights
are 10 be directly affected, shall be allow
ed notice and an opportunity To appear
and be heard in defense Of those rights;
and any mode of procedure without such
notice and opportunity would. In cases
| like the present. afford a municipal cor
poration ready means Of bringing about
a virtual coniiscation OF the citizens es-
tate.
II is obvious that. so far from there
being in that section anything authorizing
the ass ssmcnt in question, the method OF
assessment attempted by said city Is
Unauthorized thereby, and is opposed to
the very letter and spirit thereof. In
any view Of the subject II Is too plain 10
need argument. that there ) no express
authority in said section Of the charter
for repeated assessments for betterments;
or, what is the same thing, peculiar Dane-
fits 10 that portion Of the citizens prop
erty not taken; nor Is there anything
from which any such authority may be
implied.
No more cogent argument against the
| Injustice and oppression incident TO the
mode of local assessment for betterments,
attempted by the municipal authoIilles
Of the city Of Norfolk, can be adIuced
than the practical result TO the appellee
I'm the present case. This was a vacant
lot on the corner Of CRANKY and Plume
streets. fronting % feet on the former,
and running back 3 feet to Concord
street. The proposed improvement is to
widen and extend Plume street, the pres
ent width of which is 80 feet. With this
street, as then established AID used, ana
as it had been for a good many years,
tho AUDITING land owners seem to have
been satisfied, and hence they refused to
sell the land required by the cit for
the Improvement, and the city thereupon
resorted to the condemnation proceedings
provided by law. And after viewing the
property and hearing evidence, sad com
m~issioners ascertained that for the land
taken. which was a strip fronting ten
feet on CRANKY street, and running back
as aforesaid. and for damages to the resi-
due of said lot, over and above the pecu-
liar benefits, the appellee was entitled TO
81 200 as lust compensation. They did not
report specifically the amount OF damage
TO the residue, nor the amount IN Value
of the peculiar benefits. That they did
not do 80 can only be accounted for on
the ground that they made a Jumping
business Of II, considered the damage
to the residue and peculiar DEMENT'S as
eoual and set off the one against the
other. and thus ascertained the $l,ZU as
lust compensation for the part actually
taken. AS this seems the only intelli-
gible way of arriving at the basis or
their conclusions, It would seem to follow
that the commissioners the
value of the whole lot at 1850; or, SlZO
per front foot. which rate makes the
81. 200 ascertained and paid as Just COM
pensation for the land taken.
BY thus reducing the frontage or the
appellee S lot from - 10 10 ltcI' tHV l'SirNN
is rendered comparatively unfit for I'M
provement for either business or resi-
Dental purposes, for. after allowing for
the usual thickness Of walls, in the event
Of building thereon, there would be LETT
barely the space Of ten feet Tor occupa-
ton. 1t goes, therefore, Without saying
that. so far from there being any peculiar
benefits to the residue of the lot, the
same is. in the nature of things, very
---.4- I..AAng4 npA a * obvious 1I4I
the commissioners. in of-setting SUCH
damages with the imaginary peculiar
benefits, which, they supposed, would re-
suit to the residue from the propose i'm
provement, imposed upon the appellee a
burden. which, I'm all probability, was
far In excess Of anything the city was
entitled to demand. In the light OF com
mon experience and observation, II is but
fair TO assume that, under the peculiar
circumstances Of this case the residue or
the appellee's lot was damaged in the ratio
of it's decreased frontage, which would re-
duce the value Of said residue TO about
SS7l. or less by $3.50 han the assessment
for betterments here In question. II,
therefore. this assessment could be even
tolerated. the result would be that the
appellee. under a forced sale, has been
compelled TO part with l0-2jds of his lot
for the consideration Of 81, 200. and 10 pay
the assessment Of $500 on the residue
Of his property, which assessment exceeds
the value OF said residue by the sum OF
s6Sg; or. to state it differently, the appel
lee would be compelled to part with his
lot. worth $3.50. for the paltry considera-
ton Of 81, 200, and to pay a bonus of 1853 for
the privilege Of being thus VctimiZed.