Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1894-01-16
Board. were Subsequently read and

Section 70, requiring overs OF lots 10
abate nuisanceS in the shape OF stag
nant pools OF water and other nuisanceS
after ten days notice, was also adopted
after some conversational debate.
Section 4, however. which provides
for the levying Of g tax OF 10 cents per
front foot on eli property in the city
proved an edectual clog to further leg
islation in the matter OF the new chart
er.
Mr.. Cariin was the first speaker. He
was decidedly in favor OF improving
streets, but was averse 10 increasing
taxation. Taxes were now as heavy as
they could be borne, and while it was
the general desire Of people that the
city should enter into street improve
ments he was not ready to add 10 the
burdens OF the taxpayers. especially
when it could De demonstrated that
the Improvements could be made with
out resorting 10 this measure. (He
was referred to a plan which is regard
ed as practicable By many in which il
is proposed that the city issue $4,000
in bonds-$j0, 900 year-and the
money raised by the sale OF them 10 be
applied toward street improvements
Another reason, the speaker said, why
be opposed the section was the fact
that its provision was not equita-
Bile for the reason that the
levy proposed did not fall upon
all alike. For instance, one man
might own square Of ground valued
at 800. 900 and his assessment would be
no more than that against another par
tv who owned q square valued at
5000. He also feared that in thus
increasing taxation in the shape OF lev
les Council would do more toward re-
tarding the building up OF the city than
in acceierating it. The greatest bug
bear which confronted people now who
entertain any notion of coming TO Alex
andria is the tax rate imposed here.
The proposed movement would be
death blow to all the city's prospects.
The city had better wait and see if 9TH
er plans would prove more feasible be-
fore embarking in this. removed that
the entire section be stricken ont.
Mr.. HiDken seconded the motion.
Dir. Goodrich agreed with Mr.. Carlin
in most Of his standpoints, but suggest
ed that instead Of so cents per front
foot" the seption be made to read 40
cents on every 800 of the assessed val
ue of property
Mr.. Carlin gave history of the pro-
position referred TO above which is for
the city to issue bonds and raise 500
900 for the improvement OF the streets.
He thought this movement, il carried
out, would meet the requirements OF
the case The income OF the city, ne
asserted, was steadily increasing, and it
would be a comparatively easy matter
TO pay interest on the bonds it was pro-
posed to put on the market.
Mr.. Burke said he, too, was opposed
to increasing taxation. but the section
being discussed merely gave Council
power to meet the issue now confront
, ing the city. Should bonds be issued
the interest would have to be paid reg
. ularly, and Council should not lose
sight of the fact that s. 900 more would
be added to the city's burdens next
| year. Expenses, unfortunately, were
increasing more rapidly than was the
uity's income He could not possibly
see how the city could pay additional
! interest on bonds without increasing
taxes.
Mr.. Carlin replied that the city ex-
pended 1000 every year on streets.
That amount could be spent in the
way OF interest and the amount raised
| on the bonds spent on the improve
f ment of thoroughfares.
: Mr.. Sweeney opposed the section and
: spoke earnestly against its adoption.
He gave various reasons from his stand
: point why it should not be adopted in
t its present form, arguing that it was un-
: just toward people who owned corner
lots, compelling them as it did to pay
t six times as much as those holding lots
: in the centre Of squares. On the out
e skirts of the city, the speaker thought,
D it would amount to virtual confscation
] especially in localities where ten or
E fifteen years might elapse before they
t were built up. He argued that such
assessments should be levied according
r to the assessed value of property, and
I made motion that all property in the
: city be taxed at the rate of 10 cents on
, the 500 assessed value in order to raise
z a special improvement fund.
Dir. Cariin remarked that such law
would impose heavier burden than
t the one imposed by the section.
1Ir. Burke couldn't see the necessity
for adopting Mr.. Sweeney's views.
, Council now and always had
power to levy taxes for all purposes.
He acknowledged the force of DIR.
Sweeney's objections, especially those
2 in reference to the owners of corner lots
and property owners on the outskirts
who would doubtless regard the pro-
! vision of the section as hardship.
He was averse to increasing taxes, but
now that the gard section compelling
AUDITING property owners to pay one
third of the costs of street improve
ments had been declared imperative,
be didn't know in what other manner
additional revenue could be raised.
Mr.. Carlin again moved to strike
, out the 41st section, remarking pleas
antly that he supposed Mr.. Sweeney
had about exhausted his powers by bis
last speech and doubtless was unable
to antagonize the motion.
Mr.. Sweeney said he had all the Vi
tality necessary for continuing the de
bate, was by no means exhausted, and
moved his amendment-10 cents on the
800.
By this time the lower board had ad
iourned, most of the members of that
body having entered the Aldermen's
chamber and taken seats without the
bar.