The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-04-20
uHE LIGHTING TAX FOLLY.

favor. If the Council was right and
the masses were wrong, the Council
could afford to stand by its position
and brave the popular wrath, which is
frequently unreasonable and as
changeable as the wind. But this
time the people have common sense
and very probably the law also on
their side.
The Council, or rather a trifie over a
half of that body and that trif1e per-
sonally interested in the matter, de-
termined to override a plain, simple
principle of justice and equity, on tile
back of an obscure provision in an
old charter which has been patched
and amended and partly repealed, I'M
til the shreds remaining are too fiimsy
to tie to with any degree of safety.
The charter of 1866. more than thirty
years old, is the hobby horse of hat
half of the City Council.
It Jumps street lighting in districts
and subdivisions of the city, with paw
ing, planking, opening and repairing
sidewalks. conducting sewers and
drains, ETC., all of which were under
stood to be local and not general, and
permitted local assessments according
to the benefit to the real estate and
land claims and improvements in the
district assessed.
In order to make that antiquated and
obscure provision applicable today, the
Council had to assume that the lamps
erected for street lighting were put up
for the benefit of the property in their
neighborhood. That is so evidently
absurd, that it is remarkable how
some Of the gentlemen who took that
position could close their eyes to its
incorrectneSs and palpable folly.
That the street lights are for the
benefit of the people, not property,
seems so clear as to be beyond rational
dispute. They are for the lighting of
the streets. Property is lighted from
within. 1t is a private matter. The
streets are lighted for the users of the
streets and is a public matter.
The full absurdity of the expensive
scheme that the bare majority of our
city fathers have forced upon the city,
in spite of protests and the light of
ordinary common sense, is seen IN
leYying an assessment on school prop
erty, which is only used in the day
time. Of what benefit to the land, and
the bricks and mortar upon it, is a
street lamp whether close by or half
block or more distant?
Take the lots and garden spots not
occupied by house or store or other
building, situated in the center of a
block and abutting, or not, upon a
street. OF what benefit to such land
claims is a street lamp at the inter-
section Of streets half block away?
There are business blocks not used at
night or if used in the evening, that
are lit up by private means. Of what
benefit to the empty stores or offices
IN a street lamp at the corner of the
block?
Is it not indisputable that it is the
public. walking. riding or driving on
the streets who are benefited by
street lighting. and cot the mani
mate property which our wise city
statesmen 90 are determined to as
sess for benefits received?"
On behalf of the taxpayers we once
more protest against this imbecility
and injustice. and hope it will be
knocked to smithereens by the courts.
to which it will certainly be appealed,
seeing that the promoters of the fool
cry are determined to push it to ex-
.remes.
The Herald has exposed the errors
# the Council in this particular, sew
.ral times. and also pointed out the
consistent and practical way whereby |
he difficulty as to money can be met.
BY assessment of a general tax sufff- |
lent to meet all the current expenses, /
street lighting included, and obtaining
redit from the lighting company I'M
il the taxes begin to come in, the |
Whole trouble could be met, and the
anne system that has prevailed from
he beginning could be continued.
rhe present City Council is the only
ne during all the thirty years since
he charter was passed. in which this
PROVISION is made, that has attempted
O apply it to street lighting.
We remind our fellow citizens that
low is the time to enter protests
gainst the wrong sought to be done.
yext Tuesday the board will sit again
t 7:SO p. m. Objections ought to be
led at once. inequalities can be
hown by comparing amounts charged
n adjoining pieces Of property. IN
ess complaints are entered the as
essments will stand.
1t is not so much the amount which
ill have to be paid by property own
rs as the nonsensical and stupid sys-
en- adopted that ought to be resisted.
Benefits to property from a street
amp! Benefits to the public every
ody can understand. If the Council
ersists in its folly the courts will
ave to decide whether it viii remain.
n any event it is likely that the end
l view in the resort to this silly ex-
edient will not be attained. 1t will
e some time before the treasury will
e replenished from special street
ghting tax.