The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-02-11
PROPOSED Special TAxEs.

There is no opposition that we have
heard of in this city to the sprinzline
of the streets, or to the payment of
the work necessary to lay the dust.
from the taxes paid by the property
owners. But there is objection to the
present mode of taxation, and also to
the bill now under consideration in the
Legislature.
1t is proposed to give city councils
power to assess special taxes for
sprinkling the streets. lay sewers. etc.
! irrespective of the wishes of the prop
erty owners. That is to say, if pro
test is made against either, no matter
how many taxpayers may sign the
protest it is to be of no avail. The
tax may be levied whether they like it
or not; all they will have to do will be
to pay the. money or allow their prop
erty to be sold for delinquency.
The sprinkling of the streets in the
proper season is no doubt essential to
the public welfare 1t should be made
a public service and be paid for out of
the public treasury. Every city should
make its own regulations as to that.
but the expense. like street lighting
and street repairing. should come out
of the general taxes. We do not be-
lieve this city has any chartered power
to levy a special tax for street sprink-
ling. although number of taxpayers
have been forced to pay one, and there
is a suit pending in relation to assess
Iments of two or three years ago.
Why should there be any special as
sessment for street sprinkIing? Do
not the entire public obtain its bene-
fits? If SO. why should not the ex-
pense be paid out of the public treas
ury? 1t would come Iegitimately I'M
der the head of street improvements
If not why take money out of the
public funds FOR repairing a street in
ia particular district? 1t would be
just as reasonable to assess a special
tax on the property owners in that
district for those repairs, as to assess
a special tax in a given locality for
sDrinkling that street. They both come
under the same category and should
be paid for in the same way.
But. if it be claimed that a special
benefit is derived by particular dis
trict from street sprlnlding and there
fore a special tax should be assessed
there, the system in vogue is stil i'm
proper. 1t is negotiable ana unjust
If special taxes are to he levied in
proportion to the benefits derived, then
the owner of an empty lot should not
pay as much as the proprietor of a
lot on which stands a valuable dwell
ling. Nor should the owner of a cor
ner lot pay double or treble the tax
paid by a neighbor not on a corner,
whose improvements may be worth
three or four times as much as his.
in the business part of town where
the streets have to be sprinkled much
more frequently than in remote dis
tricts, the property owners should pay
a higher rate because of the increase
Of service. These inequalities are con
sequent upon the present system which
the bin before the Legislature proposes
to aggravate.
All these wrongs would be righted
by paying for the sprinkling of streets
out Of the fund raised by general tax
alton. We believe that if The city
charters remain as they are. the courts
VIII decide against the right to assess
property for sprinkling the streets.
We suppase the bill is introduced to
cure the weak spot in the present
law as to the powers Of cities. 1t is a
mistake in principle. If cities need
more money I'd pay for street sprink-
ling they can add. trlfe to the gener-
al tax. There is no. need for the bill
proposed, 50 far as II relates to street
sprinlzling.
As to the sewer matter,< there should