Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1897-08-13
IMPORTANT RULING
Opinion Of Attorney Thomas in a
Matter of Assessments.
INVOLVES THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
The Question Raised Upon an
Application for Relief.
REGARDED AS PRECEDENT

The District has no right to charge an
assessment against abutting property own
erS for work done i'm front of a govern
ment reservation which adjoins the prop
erty benefited.
Such, in brief. is the opinion Of the at
torney for the District. in Passing upon an
application for relief from assessment,
and the ruling is regarded as an import
ant one by the Commissioners. since ii es-
tahlishes a precedent which will cost the
District many thousand dollars.
The opinion was rendered upon the appli-
cation of citizen, Mr.. Charles A. Shields
for the readjustment and reduction of a
special assessment against his property lot
~, square Job. AS the claim of Mr..
Shields involved an important point the
papers were sent to the attorney for the
District, who was directed to furnish the
commissioners with an opinion upon the
points raised by the applicant. This the at
torney did several days ago.
The Attorneys Views.
His opinion is as follows:
Mr.. Shields makes'two objections to this
assessment.
I'm the first place he says it embraces a
piece of brick sidewalk laid by himself I'm
front of his lot-13-which he contends
was Ia good condition at the time the work
U
ment complained of was made and he in
sists that the value of this piece of pave
n'ent shouia have been considered In maxi
ing up tne assessment Tor The new pave
ment against his lot
His second objection is that the portion
OF the new sidewalk south of the south
building line of square 1913 abuts a GOV
erLment reservation, and that the cost of
tnat part of the work should not have en-
tered into the assessment
IL appears from the report of Mr. H. N
MOSS, superintendent of streets, that the
triangular piece of ground between the
southern extremity of square l0I3 18th
street and Kentucky avenue, is a govern
me1t reservation. This report is borne out
by reference to the original plat of square
lol", IN the surveyors Office, which calls
for public space as the southern
boundary of that square.
First Point Dfsapprovcd.
Il think Mr.. Shields first point is not well
taken. The report of the superintendent
of streets shows that the pavement in
front of lot - was not in good condition
and that IT was necessary to take it I'D in
the process of laying a new pavement
But, aside from this, the old pavement al
though laid by Mr.. Shields at his own ex-
pense, did not belong to him. When he
laid that pavement he dedicated il to pub
lie uses. He has therefore, no legal right
to complain If the public authorities after
ward. In laying lew pavement, deem il
necessary to take up the old one and re-
move it.
Mr.. Shields second objection, I think. is
well founded. The public plat of square
lob shows that the triangular piece of
ground at its southern extremity, formed
by the junction of 18th street and Ken
lucky avenue. is public space L. is not a
public reservation, in the ordinary sense
of the term, but it is a public space new
ertheleSS.
Provisions of the Law.
ul:der which the work was done, provides:
That one-half of the total cost of
the work shall be charged
against and become a lien upon abutting
property, and an assessment therefor
shall be levied pro rata according to the
linear frontage of said property .
The public space south of square lol:;
abuts the improvement, but being public
property, it was not liable to assessment
for one-half of the cost of the work. This
however did not Justify adding the cost
of that part of the improvement to the
part in front of private property, since
that imposed upon private owners more
than one-half the cost of the work.
My opinion is the cost of labor and ma
terials for laying the new sidewalk on the
north side of Kentucky avenue easterly
from the southwest corner of said square
should not have entered into the assess
ntent, and that the assessment should be
referred to the engineer department for
a calculation as to the cost of the work
within the limits above named. When this
ejaculation is T. ade the special assessment
division can Ieapportion the result accord
ing to the frontage of the lots Affected.