Asheville daily citizen. [volume] (Asheville, N.C.) 1890-1900, 1894-02-03
STRIKE OUT THE DAMAGES
THEY ARE NOT A PART OF
THE COST OF PAVING

THE COST OF PAVING
OpiuiOn On The subject Nv City
Attorney 8OndleY-street Chair
man wes,all's Repori-JuInping
On The Market Again.
The familiar faces of two Advisors
Messrs. Sawyer and Nichols, were to be
seeu at the meeting of the Joint Board
yesterday afternoon. 1t had been sew
eral months since a meeting of the IL
had been held, and only two members o.
the Advisory committee could be mus
tered. The Mayor and all Of the Alder
men were present, the purpose of the
meeting of both Boards being to con
slider an appl cation OF M. II. Kelly, the
contractor for the new pipe line between
the pumping station and the standpipe
He asked that he be allowed to take from
the bank So 900 OF the $4,000 guarantee
reserved for two years by the city from
the amount to be paid him, he to give
the city bond to save it harmless il
any event. Alderman Starnes made 4
motion granting the request, and after
it had been discussed and drawn up into
proper shape, so as to protect the city
absolutely, it was adopted. The Joint
Board then adjourned until next Friday
when it will meet to pass upon the ST.,
900 bond to be furnished by Mr.. Kelly
Gu, Out The Damages.
The first thing to engage the attention
OF the Board Of Aldermen was the repor,
of CITY Attorney Sondley on the ques
tion whether the damages paid to prop
erty owners for land taken along {
street to be paved could be properly pre-
rated against the owners on that street
and included in their assessments. Mr.
Sondlcy takes a view quite dissimilar tt
that held bv the former administration
or bare majority of it at least Hi:
opinion is that the damages cannot bt
properly included in the assessments, nc
he backs up his opinion bv weighty IL
page argument. The subject of widen
ing streets, he says, it seems was never
considered by the lawmakers. at wa.
certainly of sufficient Importance ant
magnitude to have been specially men
toned il intended to be included. Grad
ing is mentioned. Paving is mentioned
Macadamizing is mentioned. Drains ar
mentioned. Crossings are mentioned
When these, some of them less importan
matters, are particularly mentioned, i
it possible that SO important matte
as widening was left unmentioncd ant
intended to be covered bv the genera
and somewhat vague term improve ?
"To include" the city attorney say
again. "thc damages in question in tn
assessments provided tor in the act q
1891, would be to assess them Oh som
property which the jury had not re
ported as benefited; to leave them o
from some property which the Jury ha
reported as benefited; to assess on som
lauds reported by the jury as benefited
greater benefit than the ury had re
ported and on other lands reported b
the jury as benefited a less benefit tha
the jury had reportcd to make the Ian
on which the widening was had pa
part OF what the jury had said was onl
rjury to it; and, finally, to make tn
lands reported by the jury as benetite
pay the benefits assessed against then
by the jury and then pay, in addltlo
benefits for the same thing and benefit
which, according to the iury's verdict
they had never received
IL do not think" concludes Mr.. Sond
ley, that widening street can b
brought under the head of improving
according to the act of 1891; and d.
not think that any damages for Ian
taken in widening a street can, under tn
provisions of that act. be assessed agains
the abuttlng real estate on the street S
improved or repaired"
In accord with this opinion Mr.. one
moved to amend the. assessments so as t
strike out that portion which related I
damages. 1t was carried and the Chi
OF police was instructed to demand Onl
the amount represented by the pawn
exclusive o. the damage item.
street Chairman's Report.
Mr.. Westall, the street comm,tt'
chairman, read his report on the sire,
work. He says: 1--WE have assessed Il
abu!ting property and portion uf son
of these assessments is due. Since Il
proceeds have all been applied, we ha'
expended on various streets sever
thousand dollars, taken from the gel
eral revenues of the city. This sum,
lear, can come back to the city only |
our selling more of these bonds and a
plying part of the proceeds to this pu
pose as provided in section Z OF the &C
Ii we do not do this. tear We cam,
assess abutting property for a part
the cost of this work. thought v
could surely do this when voted to il
prove College and Water streets, wheth
we sold more bonds or not. As soon
found we could not voted against t
: work on Montiord avenue. Now, if Y
pursue course which will &c ievc pro
erty owners on these streets from payil
| two.thirds of the cost of the work, '
\ will throw the entire cost of it on t
city, thereby making those who a
assessed on the streets formerly paw
pay as much toward the improveme
of these latter streets as those who Ii
thereon. This is clearly unjust. For {
ample: An owner of lot on Dep
street, a street that the entire city mu
use. pays his share OF the general tax
and besides is assessed for paving
front of his place, and an owner
=. Water street would not have to pay a
assessment when Water streets i
provement is almost exclusively for /
: benefit OF property on that street. If
do retire the other 100000 bonds
must not abandon the policy Of assessi