The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-12-28


Darlnx the next few days no subject viii
be OF more Importance 70 the general pub
DC thaa THAI Of municipal government. "A
that time the chief plans Of legislation TO
be submitted AZ the approaching session
II be formulated. The people must abide
By the laws passed. and they have never
been 80 persisientiy invited 20 paFtake In
their preparation as now.
The Interest Ii widespread. Within two
or three years several newspapers have
sprung into prominence with no other
purposs than the promotion Of reforms
ln city and county government. conven-
tons have been held Ia many states. and
an association has been formed called
the American Society u Municipal linz
proyemenf. which has rscently submitted
a very elaborate report
The report makes some recommends
tons. but Il also embodles q synopsis OF
the systems Of many OF the LEADING cities.
some Of these would not be OF immediate
interest 10 this state. as = system which
might oe suitable 70 large city would
not be so well adapted TO a smaller city,
and especially one whose needs. a. Ia
most new states, can for a greater COM
parative outlay within shorter period.
Ths Seattle recommendation as 90 local
improvements. which win be found as
good az any referred to. is AS follows:
Local mprovsments-1hat al cost OF
local improvements should be assessed
agsinst the property benefited. and that
no cost should be paid cut OF the general
fund that Is not strictly for a general
purpose. and that under this principle
tho following changes should be made In
our system OF local improvements.
''Strest intsrsectioas-That the cost OF
grading. paving or otherwise improving
street intersections and sidewalk inter-
sections should be distributed upon and
paid by the property abutting on thu
street which Is beiag improved. and not
taxed against the general street fund OF
tho city.
Local Improvement bonds-That the
system OF applying grade tax payments
partly upon principal. while some Of the
current interest remains unpaid, is very
unsatisfactory 10 investors. and Is annoy
Ing ard confusing Ia the accounts OF the
rity. That legislation should be secured
by which the current interest on improve
Enent bonds hereafter Issued shall be paid
the principal Of the bonds
In St. Louis there is a very elaborate
system. and the city pays part OF the cost
of widening streets. but alleys are charged
entirely to the abutting property. Grad
ms and crosswalks are paid FOR by the
city, bat pavipg guttering and sidewalks
ara assessed e. ahutters. Ia case OF Oh
lection as 10 coat. the property owner
must tender what he considers the right
amount. The city is not liable IA any way
for payment to contractors. who must
hiring suit within a specified time.
Denver has q good method. II permits
tho cost % be assessed Ia whole or IA part
against the ahuttlng property. but pays
:or no Intersections except ln rare cases,
such as triaasies. Payment may be made
In installments. bur one failure makes the
entire assessment delinquent and the prop
crty may be seld. under proper restrictions.
omaha has mslea the same system. The
chief differences IN Bosteu Is the issue ~
tax bills - THE amount % tho assessment
against eaob separate piece u property,
system common 70 many places and
having very many advantages
la New York assessments become both
ten against she property sas = personal
aaHllty. IL onpSid after sixty days. r.
tcrest AZ ths rate o. per cent. per an
num Il charged, Assessments Tor certain
improvements are pay able IN instRumeats.
ara whenever an assessment IS unpaid for
three years TIRE properly may be sofa.
All these plans sga excellent. but va
tnssst that tae srand safeguard % the
cities against negligent og corrup, officials
aud aeheminS or dishonest property own.
eru "a 10 remove taxes ana assessments
sren operation - the statute % Nuita-
tiaas. = = property owner Knows he car
never escape fae lien ~ viu taka excellent
sod care % aave any difference adjudi.
Gated.
Tbs cities q this state have lost great
SEEMS through gha fsvcr3t5sn cr nesl5~vuce
81 officials, which could never have hs,1
usca ta any s3vantsge u tie princgags
were isid down II eur statutes taat gae
Imposition q tax eF assessment Is =
pFlmA tasis prNat If ghs power 70 impose
Is ara q. me regularity % ths rroeoel-
tnSz; ans thar = property aNner fea1s
b1rrsslf aEggteved be xAsl exercise tAc
dGligeacA favored By the statute g rvpsse.
and = 20 % Nc, sxsresSa TIE rsxAt wfthsn
reasonable uas. Jet hlsa ha forever
barred That i TIE ore way % sppiy tas
ssssats e. Isssftagioas to a tx or assess-
rssnt
Il VII - seen that tae Hlsn praposel
for Seattle l. asSet a. soo3 40 shy accept.
81 by other cstirs. ard that the Only sah-
te~t q cenFFeveFsy need DO the astaGx
--~----------~---~