The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-01-08

II
when objections are made 30 salefn they 4
are simply to sit as a board Of equal
zaltion. 1t IS the same unsier the act of
FsbruaTy y. 1875.
IT the council proposes to proceed UNI
der the ACT OF March II, 1886, the OBJ
jecEons can only be made IN the ways
we have heretofore explained A no.
lice is to be given and a time designate
Led TO hear the objections and here IS
the language of the charter:
sg at or before the time 50 hxed,
written objections to such improve
nients signed by the owners of ONE
HALF, IN VALUE, of the property
SO te be affected or Benefited, as shown
by The last preceding city ASSESS
AfFsET ROLL, be not filed with the re-
have acquired Jurisdiction TO order the
uiaazing OF such Improvement.
There is a provision in the act Of
March IS. 1890, which provides Tor OBJ
l5ections. signed by th8 owners OF oule-
half Of the front feet abutting upon
that portion Of the street. lane or alley
Ito lbs so improved But that act re-
lates solely 10 the opening, improving
land extending of streets, alleys and
parks, the curhing and gathering there-
lof, and the making and repairing of
sidewalks. There is nothing in it as to
lighting the streets.
It follows, therefore. that either there
is no way of protesting entirely agairlst
1.-THE proposed assessment for street
lighting. or thai it has TO be done ac-
cording to tho property valuation. And
that, as we have explained, is a. great
injustice if the assessment is to be
according TO the fronlt foOtage. For, the
lbulk of taxation will bsGalpon the poor
er portions OF, the property. while the
power to prevent the assessment lies
with the richer portions, and that adds
to the other inequalities ct the meas
lure.
Local assessments may be made to
lsupply the city or gnhabitants thereof
with water, gas or other means of illu-
uiination. But does not that imply that
the water gas, etc TO be paid for by
local assessments, is to be for the
benefit of the indavidual property own
ers. by its conveyance to their prop
lerty? That would be reasonable and
right, 1t is not SO when a. portion Of
the people are faxed for public bene-
fit. Street lighting, like street repair
ing, is. pro bono publico and, as it
always has been heretofore, should
come out of the general funds.
The section OF the act of 1856 from
which we have quoted, if 1T can be
construed as relating 10 electric lamps
for street hting-which is very doubt
| ful-gdyes power to the city council to
levy and collect local taxes. Sin pro-.
portion to benefits upon the property
Within said districts We contend that
the front footage proposition is not in
accord with that provision. IT is not
according to the benefits received.
The same section provides Tor, the
expenses Of the Improvements men
toned therein. to be paid by ''gener-
al annual tax" or by drawing on 'fthe
contingent or general fund.- And 1t is
pretty clear that the section does not
intend that the front footage principle
6IldlI apply sshLs 1IlSUducES OI .lIhISS klIlu,
because it provides, as we have shown,
for protests according to the property
valuation and not by front footage.
The whole thing as proposed is a
hodge-podge. The mayor knew what he
was about when he vetoed it. The ma
jority of the council stood more on
their dignity in passing it over his We
to, than they did on law and justice
unless ut was to trample the latter into
the mire.
The taxpayers of the city within the
| lighting district should look into this
matter thoroughly, and get ready to
sign emphatic objections as soon as
The notice for them is published The
owners of the valuable property in the
central part of town will refrain from
objecting, because this is a rich mans
ordinance, unless it may be "a few ex-
ceptfons who regard the general well
fare of the public beyond their own
pecuniary interests The ordinance
should be objected out of its unna-
tural life.