The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-01-04
a PIECE OF GREAT rNJUsTIoE.

| A PIECE OF GREAT rNJUsTICE.
We must confess to. some surprise
that the majority in the city council
in favor OF the local assessment ordi.
nance for street lighting, was suffi-
lcient to pass it over the mayors veto.
The members who favored the cause
iof the people in supporting the may
Tor were Councilmen Morris, O'Meara,
Mason and Watson. 1t was under
stood that Mr.. Clawson was not in
favor of the ordinance but he did not
exhibit his opposition by his vote. He
probably preferred letting the matter
go to the people. The gentlemen whose
Inames are here mentioned deserve the
appreciation of the masses.
That suggests the next thing to be
done by people living in the lighting
district formed by the ordinance.
/ Under the charter provisions relating
to such matters, if majority of the
taxpayers residing within the limits of
that district, representing more than
one-half of the property valuation
therein, protest against the tax, the
ordinance will fail Of its purpose.
Those who understand it and its real
discrimination in favor of the wealthy
at the expense of the poorer classes
of taxpayers, while it bears the APP
pearance of equality. should make the
matter clear to others, so that when
the test comes the scheme may be
voted down.
| 1t is true, no doubt, that the city is
pressed for money for current expenses
and that the city council see the need
of raising it by special taxation. There
! is, too, some senlblance of fairness in
requiring the people who live in the
light supplied, to pay for it. But, as
one of the councilmen showed, the city
might as well assess a local tax to
pay the police, in the parts of town
where they have their beats, as to as
sess a local tax for street lighting.
1t viii be replied, no doubt, that
there is chartered power to assess the
local tax for lighting but not for po-
lice service. That may be true, but
the argument remains good all the
same. And some things that may be
lawful are certainly not always ex-
pedient. The city has provided light
I ing for the streets for a great many
years, and for thirty of them could
have collected a local tax on real es-
tate and Improvements for lighting the
streets. But it never exercised it in
| that way any more than it did, or at
| tempts to do now, for leveling, mac
adamizing or keeping in repair the
streets of the city.
1t is possible that when this matter
comes to the protest of the people the
bulk of the property valuation will be
| in favor of the scheme. For it is a
rich mans ordinance. 1t is in favor
Of the men who hold the valuable and
profitable real estate, as against the
poorer owners. And it is doubly in
equitable in these respects: That While
it assesses local tax for street light
ing according to the front footage. it
requires protest against it to be
based on the property valuation.
That is to say, the owners of pieces
Of ground which have a large front
footage but are of small cash value
viii have TO pay a very much greater
special tax than the owners of verv
valuable property with small front
footage. And in filing objections. the
number of taxpayers or the front foot
age which they represent, paying the
vastly greater portion of the tax, will
on the other hand cut but "a small
figure compared with the valuable
property owners who pay but a, small
portion of the tax
There should be a united effort on
the part Of those opposed to this I'M
equal and unjust innovation, first TO
vote it down by signed objections. and
that falling, to resist collection of the
tax by legal means. Although the
charter may be construed as giving
power to the city TO do what it has
attempted, on the other hand there is
sufficient opening for different and
more equitable construction, and the
matter ought to be judicialIy tested.
If the city council We're determined
to push the local assessment, they need
not have put it on the front footage
principle, but could have made if
property valuation tax and still have
complied with the charter. But that
would not have pleased the bankers.
the corporations and the owners of
valuable property, and so it is pressed
in the present form.
We are of the opinion that the coun-
Gil will find it a harder job to collect
this street lighting tax than they did
to enforce the illegal street sprinkling
tax. Both ought to come out of the
general funds of the city, because thew
are for public and not merely for pri-
vate purposes, and means can be found
to supply the needful light just as it
has for sprinkling, without resort to
the unpopular and inequitable method
now proposed.