Jamestown weekly alert. [volume] (Jamestown, Stutsman County, D.T. [N.D.]) 1882-1925, 1893-03-23
A Correspondent Desires In
fOrmatIOn.-The Work
Discussed.
Business Men of the City Seem
to Want Sewerage.-lts
Benefits.
Cost and Method of Opening
a Farm in North Da-
kOta.

nation of the proposed sewer. May I
ask few questions? 1st. Will 1t not
cost as much on lots 400 feet from the
sewer as those which abut it: End
Will it not cost the city at large nearly
one-fourth the total cost OF the sewer!
3rd. Is it right or just to take the filth
from one part of our city and deposit it
in another, where it will injure and de.
stroy the property of another? Is it
right to take the homes Of some of our
oldest residents and give them to others!
am in favor of a sewer or anything
else that will benefit the health OF our
city, but the sewerage should be emptied
where it will not destroy the property of
others and endanger their lives. l
think this question ought to be thought
fully considered by every one.
Yours truly,
H. j. WARNER.
Replying to the first inquiry above the
following brief outline OF the manner of
procuring sewerage prescribed by the
city charter, seems sufficient. Accord
ing to the charter, in order to construct
any sewer. the cost of the same shall be
first estimated by the city engineer.
This has been done, and the amount
estimated for the sewerage proposed, is
about $4,000. The city council has
power to issue bonds for this purpose,
payable in rot to exceed 20 years, at the
rate of not exceeding 10 per cent per
annum. For paying the principle and
interest on these bonds, the council shall
appoint three persons, from among the
citizens. who shall act as "a special sewer
age assessment committee" who under
oath shall inspect all lots abutting upon
the sewer, or within $50 feet of any part
of the sewer. This committee shall as
sess against the lots which will be, in the
opinion Of the committee, specially bene
| fitted by The sewerage, a special assess
ment not to exceed 500 for any 25x14O
foot lot. The intent is to assess against
each lot, located as above described.
only its fair proportion of amount Of
benefit received. The committee shall
publish list O. lots 80 assessed and the
amounts, and appoint time and place
where any objections to the same can
be heard and after further publication
in a newspaper, an appeal from
| the decision OF the committee can be
made to the city council, which shall
decide if any person is justly aggrleved
or not. The payments for such assess
ment are to be made as an annual tax
| in sums Of one.twentleth of TIE whole
amount as determined by the committee
and accepted by the council. No lot can
ever be specially assessed more than
once for sewerage purposes. If the
special assessment does not provide sufi'
cient revenue to pay the annual interest
aud yearly proportion Of principal, the
council may levy ageneral tax for such
purpose; for instance, if the amount OF
special benefits assessed against the lots
is 5000 and the cost OF the sewer is
$1,000, the city will be required to meet
the small difference of $1,000. The rate
of interest the bonds would bear woulC
not exceed 6 per cent.
It is not at all likely that the city
would be required to pay one-fourth o.
the total cost. The committee to assess
the benefits would, without question, be
fair and honorable committee, anC
would report justly what each lot OF
parcel of land should pay. It's though,
that the benefits to be derived would be
assessed principally against the lots or
Fifth avenue and Main street. The lot.
where the Gladstone hotel is situated
would be assessed much more in proper
ton than others as the benefits would be
proportionately greater. At any rate
the total cost is so small and the benefits
to health and reputation so great, that
no progressive citizen could, in the gen
eral interests Of the city, reasonably
object to a small difference, distributed
over 20 years, If such should arise.
As to the question whether it is just tc
deposit sewerage in one part of the city tc
injure the property of Others, that lshardly
stating the case as it IS. The justice in
the matter ,s whether the benefits fol
the many are to be refused for the bene'
fit OF the few. The running OF the sewer