The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-01-06

The more the proposition to assess
a local tax according to the front foot
age Of real estate to ply for lighting
the streets of the city is investigated,
the more inequitable and indefensible
it appears.
The amendments TO the city charter
which are alleged to confer on the
city council the power to assess local
tax for that purpose. though not defi-
mite as TO the authority of that body
10 impose a local tax for a general pub
lie purpose, is very pointed and clear
in this: When the power TO levy and
collect local tax is exercised. the as.
sessment must be .in proportion to the
benefits upon property within said dis
tricts."
Now will it be contended that BUSH
ness property in the central parts of
the city do not receive greater benefits
from street lighting than the property
in the outer limits of the lighting dis
trict? Yet the owners of such bust
hess properly viii pay far less for the
street lighting than will the owners
of less valuable property which is dis
tant from the central portions OF the
city.
A bank or other business building,
several stories high. the occupants of
which and consequently the owners
also. will all be benefited by the street
lighting will be ASSESSED but a very
small sum, while the owner of a one
story little house on q. corner, or any
where with a large frontage, will be
assessed many times more, because the
front footage of the lot is so much
greater.
The street and other railways Will
pay nothing for the benefits they de-
rive from the street lighting along their
lines Of road, while poor people in
sparsely populated parts VIII be mule
ted in large sums. to pay for those
lights in the streets which are for the
public benefit and that of the rich cor
poratieas which escape taxation for
this purpose.
Take for example a street on which
one of the railroads occupies the CEN
ter. On either side there are small
houses in lots with long frontage
and some lots that are unimproved. The
owners viii be assessed so much per
foot Of their frontage, for lighting the
street, the lamps perhaps being a long
distance from some of the houses The
railroad will get the benefit of the lights
without paying a cent of the tax as
sessed for. them. Where is the equity
or common sense of that arrangement?
I The general public, living in or out
of the lighted district, are benefited
by street lighting and the business
parts are most frequented by them. If
the tax is to be proportioned 10 the
benefits received. the general public
should be taxed for street lighting.
That is to say. the expense should
come out of the general funds of the
city It is a public benefit and the
public should pay for it.
We wish to call attention again to
another and most Vicious inequality in
this front footage arrangement which
the majority of the city council seem
determined ito force upon. the people
The assessment ds to be according to
the FRONT FOOTAGE of~the property
that is TO be taxed. The vote of the
taxpayers upon the measure is to be
decided by the owners of ''one-half
IN VALUE of the property to be so
affected So the front footage is to
rule in the taxing, but the valuation is
ta r-t,Io -, Az a x,r~tipor ,,,,o,,
To defeat the ordinance it requires
written objection to be filed with the
city recorder, signed by the owners
of one half, in value, of the property.
to be so affected or benefited as shown
by the last preceding city assessment
roll" If that is not done within the
time specified in the notice which is to
be published by the city council, that
body will have power to enforce the
tax; providing, of course, it is not re-
strained by judicial authority on a suit
in the courts. All that the rich property
owners have to do is to lay back and
let the poorer property owners who will
have to pay the bulk of the tax, write
as many objections as the please.
Ii will be seen that while the owner
of small house with a large frontage
to the land, or the owner Of land with
out a house, fronting on a lighted
street, will he assessed a large sum
for street lighting, compared with
what the owner of a valuable business
house will be taxed, when it comes to
protesting against the assessment the
rich man who is assessed but a frac-
ton of what the poor man is charged,
will have three or four or a dozen or
a hundred times as many votes in eff
feet against the poor mans small prop
erty protest.
The only thing for the taxpayers
who are not among the favored few,
for whose particular benefit this in
iquitous scheme has been devised, is to
be sure and sign objections to its. en-
forcement in due time, of which they
will be informed by The Herald. 1t is
possible that enough objections based
on property valuations can be obtained
to defeat it. IF not, then other steps
will have to be taken which we will
not now take occasion TO explain. The
needless and unfair thing must be de-
feated.