The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-03-27
A MANIFEST ABsURDlTY.

The committee appointed to regulate
the assessment of the special tax for
street lighting have. no doubt. done
the best they could. and have made
the apportionment according to the
benefits they think will accrue to the
property in the district But there is a
serious and absurd defect in the whole
business That is not the fault of the
committee. Perhaps it may be said it
is not the fault of the city council.
That depends upon how the matter is
adjudged. The fault is in the charter
primarily. and in the city council sec
ondarily.
Benefits received by the property
in the district" is the absurdity and
defect to which we refer. The benefits
from street lighting are to the people
who use the streets. whether they walk
or ride upon the thoroughfares. 1t is
not the land or the buildings on it
abutting on the streets. that receive
the benefit. ANY assessment based on
that ridiculous notion must of neces-
sity be unfair.
The error comes from Jumping a
lQ1AlOGl VI pOO4lO DlON40AO1iO IA OllC
section of the charter, and making a
provision that only applies to some of
them cover the whole batch. Sewerage.
paving, and some other things for
which special taxes are provided in the
old charter. long since out Of date, un-
der which the present city council has
made this fool movement, would be
rational. But to include street lighting
among them was the height of folly,
and the present city council is the first
of the series of municipal bodies
since the act of thirty years ago was
passed, to reach that hight.
Is there anybody in the city council.
including the president. who has been
active in pressing this unjust and I'M
reasonable provision, who will have
the hardihood to say that street lamps
have been erected to light the ada
cent private property? Is there any
body who believes that a solitary lamp
was ever put UP for such a purpose?
Are the lamps not erected. wherever
they have been placed, for the benefit
of the general public?
Why, then. should the city council
take advantage Of that almost obso-
lete provision in the ancient charter.
to perpetrate an injustice upon prop
erty-holders which is positively gro
tesque in it's nonsensical application?
If the wrong commences in the law, it
is developed and aggravated in its ap-
plication. and the blame rests upon
the majority of the council that has.
forced the stupid thing upon the tax
payers.
No doubt the commissioners who
have made the apportionment have
acted judiciously in the discharge of
the duty imposed upon them. They
did not make the law, nor did they
bring it into enforcement. They have
merely exercised their best Judgment
in carrying out what the council or
dered.
The consequence will be that much
injustice will be done to property
holders. whose property receives no
benefit from the lights. while many of
the public who receive the benefits
pay no portion of the tax. But we
imagine there will be a protest against
the whole thing, which. if carried into
the courts, viii knock it much higher
than the poles on which the new
new light company are told they will
have to hang their wires if they come
into competition with the present