Omaha daily bee., 1899-06-06
GOOD PROSPECTS FOR PAVING
City Officials Anxious to Have Wiokham
Bros Contract Carried Out,
ALDERMAN CASPER PUSHING THE MATTER
II Getting Property Owners TO Sign
Consent to the Contract and to
waive Their Rights to Dis
putting the Assessment.

! Waive Their Rights to Dis
putting the Assessment.
1t now looks as IL there was prospect
! for the paving ordered on certain streets
last fall by the city council TO be carried
cut. The city officials are anxious that the
work should be proceeded with, as the
price at which the contract was let to
| Wickhsm Bros. is most favorable and would
not likely be secured again. Alderman
Casper is pushing the matter and is get
| ting the interested property owners to sign
! a consent TO the contract and TO waive
their rights to disDuting the assessment.
The work has 50 far been stopped, owing
to the decision Of the supreme court in a
paving suit in which It was held that prop
| erty could not be assessed for special i'm
provements for more than the benefit accru-
! ing 10 the property By such improvement
This decision has proven veritable STUN
| bling block so far to the carrying out OF
further public improvements as the pres
ent city ordinances require the cost OF i'm
provements, such as paving. to be assessed
against the abutting property according TO
the lineal feet OF the property and ire
spective Of the benefits accruing to such
property The property owners on Bryant
street ali appear TO be willing that the
street shall be paved and already two
thirds OF the owners on Main street have
signed the waiver. The interested prop
erty owners on Willow street are also said
to be in favor of having their portion OF
the thoroughfare paved. The contract price
for the paving OF these streets Is Sl.l0 and
It is said that at this rate the contractor
is not at all anxious to go ahead with the
work unless forced to. The paving OF
Avenue F, between Oakland avenue and
North Second street. was let at sl.3s, and
this the contractor IS willing to carry out
and with the exception Of one or two the
property owners are willing that he should.
Owing to the opposition TO the paving on
Washington avenue and Benton street AL
derman Casper stated yesterday that no
effort would be made by the city to have
these streets paved at present
City Attorney Wadsworth, who attended
the meeting at Des Moines of the city at
torneys of the principal cities in the state,
at which this paving question was the prin-
cipal subject of discussion, has prepared a
report for the guidance Of the city officials,
which he submitted at the meeting Of the
city council last night.
Rules rs to Paving.
After reviewing the decision of the su-
preme court in the paving case City At
torney Wadsworth says in his report that
the following rules were deduced at the
meeting as the result OF that decision:
First-That a special assessment upon
abutting or adjacent property for the cost of
a local improvement in substantial excess OF
the special benefits conferred upon such
property is void TO the extent of such ex
cess, but to that extent only.
Second-That assessment upon abutting
or adjacent property for the cost of local
improvement which is levied under a rule
or system which excludes any inquiry or
opportunity to be heard as to special bene-
fits. will be invalid
Third-That special assessment upon
abutting or adjacent property for the cost
of local. improvement which Is levied under
a plan or a system which does not exclude
an investigation or consideration of the spe-
cial benefits and which accords TO the prop
erty owner an opportunity to be heard upon
the question of the amount to be assessed
Will be sustained.
After stating the substance of the Iowa
assessment laws which do not require the
assessment of improvements against abut-
ting property, but permit the payment Of a
whole or part against from the street i'm
| proyement fund, the report continues:
| 1t is true that in sections SIT, s18 and Sl9
| assessments are required to be made in
proportion to the lineal feet, but constru-
| ing the several sections of the staute to-
| gether 1t is clear that while the city has the
power in proper case to assess the en-
| tire cost OF the street Improvement or sewer
| TO the abutting or adjacent property, yet II
| is not required to assess the whole and can
| assess so much as Is by law or ordinance as
| sessable. The constitution is a law and II
| 1t limits the amount TO be assessed to the
| special benefits to be conferred, then the
| language OF the statute as plainly limits
the amount to be assessed to the special
benefits conferred upon the property to be
assessed
! Again in section S23 the property owner
| Is given an opportunity to object and TO
| be heard respecting all errors, irregularities
| and inequalities in the proposed assess
ment, and thus can object and be heard
either because there is an error or irregu-
| larity in that the entire amount proposed
| to be assessed upon all property is in excess
| OF the amount by law or ordinance assess
able, !. e., in excess Of benefits or that there
| Is an irregularity inequality in that he is
charged more than his proportion of the
amount assessable; and II aggrieyed by the
assessment made he is given in section 500
| an appeal in which can be tried every ques-
| tion touching the validity or regularity OF
any of the proceedings or the amount Of the
assessment and have a decree entered fix
| Ing the assessment which should have been
made.
Applying these principles to the assess
ments already proposed by a resolution OF
| improvements are made in a portion Of the
| city where the property Is valuable and
where there is great amount of necessary
| travel the benefits accruing to the abutting
| property would be equal TO the amount as
| sessed against the respective pieces OF
property and that property owners even
under the findings in the case OF Norwood
| against Baker would have little chance OF
| getting relief of the payment OF any part
OF the amounts so respectively assessed.
II was the judgment of the convention
that where property owners are given an
opportunity to be heard in regard TO the
amount to be assessed against their prop
erty and fair to object that they are here
after estopped from raising the question OF
the legality of the assessment.
Whereas, In my judgment, with the ex-
ception OF a few irregular pieces of prop
erty having large frontage and small area,
the improvements contemplated by the res
olutions already passed could be legally as
sessed against the abutting property and
that the assessments could be collected, at
the same time / would deem 1t advisable TO
amend the generar improvement ordinance
so that IL Will authorize the city council TO
assess the costs OF improvements TO the
abutting property owners in proportion 70
the benefits derived and the excess cost Of
said Improvements should be paid out Of the