Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-01-23

ciple which was so recently repudiated?
The modernized half-and- half principle
originally promulgated in the act of 1898
and now severally set forth in the independ-
ent extension proposals, is unjust in general
and particular. 1t is wrong in It's essence
for eliminating the United States. itself a
heavy property owner in both the urban and
the suburban sections of the District from
this burden of capital-making. 1t is I'M
just in addition because of the indiscrim
mate manner in which it applies the bur-
den to the owners of the private property
adjoining the areas taken for street extern
sion. No difference is noted between those
of the suburban belt near the city proper
and those of the belt in the more strictly
rural areas nearer the District line
The former receive a minimum of benefit
from the extensions proposed. They have
already certain degree of convenience in
city improvements and of access TO their
property and are much less palpably bene-
fitted by the opening of new streets. In
their case, too, the condemnation damages
TO pay for the costly land taken are very
heavy. The more remote properties, how
ever, receive a maximum of benefit from
the opening of the land and the condemna-
ton damages are at minimum. Notwith-
standing these facts the>.act of 1898 in its
first form and the separate acts now pend
ing insist upon rigid half-and-half dis
tribution of the damages between the adj
jacent property and the District.
1t was found impracticable to get juries
to assess one-half of the condemnation DAM
ages as benefits upon adjacent property in
the case of extensions within the belt of
subdivisions where the land condemned was
valuable and the actual benefits slight. 1t
-hoth tna eli m
of the law of 1898 which was found to be
impracticable in 1898 will prove to be any
more practicable when re-enacted in 1899.
The highway act of 1898 was, in the re-
spects stated, Ubiquitous. The re-enactment
of the obnoxious provisions in 1899 will
place a law Upcn the statute books which is
equally Ubiquitous.
The actual benefits of street opening
should be Il: sessed upon adjacent owners to
their full amount, whether in the different
sections the percentage be %. 30 or 100 per
cent of the condemnation damages. Then
the deficiency should be supplied on the
half-and-half basis under the organic act
of 1873.
1t is sometimes suggested that the streets
in suburban extension should be donated,
just the original streets of the city were
given. The street surfaces in the large
holdings of unsubdvided land outside of
the belt of subdivisions will be thus do
mated. The actual benefits of extension will
be greater in this section than the cost of
the land in the streets, and either through
direct donation, or an assessment of bene-
fits equal to the condemnation damages,
these streets will be secured without public
expense. But the conditions are obviously
disSimilar in the case of extensions through
al,
benefits are at minimum and the damages
at maximum. 1t has already been noted
in The Star that while the original streets
of Washington were donated by the large
farm owner; who would profit by the loca-
ton of the capital through the increase in
value of the land retained, equitable eX-
ception was made in the case of certain lot
of the capital. Where such lots were alb
sorbed in the streets of Washington the
United States gave in compensate lots
close at hand in Washington's plan, taken
from the lots assigned to the nation. Thus
in the original arrangement the lot-owner
distinguished from the farm-owner was
compensated for his property taken In
street extension, and was compensated by
the United States alone 1t is asked that
the same just discrimination be exercised
today, that the farm-owner be required TO
donate, and that the lot-owner be paid
not. however, by the United States alone as
in the beginning. but by the United States
and the Dist share share aliLa