The record-union., 1899-06-25
STREET ASSESSMENT LAWS.

A Sonoma County Superior Court
has decided that the Vrooman Act is
unconstitutional, in that it assesses
upon frontage property the cost OF
street building, and makes that cost q
lien and cloud upon title without
proof of benefits being made. That is
to say, it puts lien upon mans
property on the assumption of benefits
accruing, without first establishing the
fact, and hence it amounts to the TAX
ing of property without due process Of
law.
We have not seen the decision. Our
information concerning 1t is gained
from fugitive items in the interior
press. We shall embrace early oppor-
tunity to read the decision in full, for
the mere statement of it as given in
local items, corresponds with belief
long entertained by this journal, which
for years has been a persistent advo-
cate of a system that would make
street building and repair matter OF
g
burden upon front footage.
The Record Union" has never been
able to perceive the justice Of charging
to the adjacent property the cost of
street construction, when streets are
made for and used by the whole people.
Why they should not be opened and
constructed and at general cost, as we'll
as maintenance of a police force, Of a
water system, fire protection system,
lighting system, ETC., we have never
been able to understand.
Now comes a United States Circuit
Court in Missouri with decision which
appears to confirm the opinion of the
Sonoma court. It is telegraphed that
this Federal Court holds that statute
authorizing cities and towns in Mis-
souri, to assess the cost of opening,
constructing and paving public streets
against the owners of abutting prop
erty, apportioning the whole cost
ton of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the Federal Constitution, which for
bids the taking Of private property for
public use without just compensation.
1t is added
Judge Phillips holds that unless all
the benefit of such improvements re-
bounds to abutting property-ow as
distinguished from the city at large,
this statute is unfair. He holds, too,
that property in one location may be
benefited more than property in an
other location on the same street and
that to be in harmony with the clause
of the Constitution cited, assessments
| must be levied in proportion to the
benefit derived.
We assume from this that the Mis-
souri, statute Is very similar to that
known in California as the vrooman
Act. If SO. the decision Of the Federal
Court has direct interest for us. OF
this, however, we are convinced, and
long have been, that the system of as
sessing street cost against adjacent
property, when the street Is for public
use, is relic Of a. period that has
passed out Of the advanced conditions
Of the civilization of the age; that it is
not founded In reason or justice, and
that in the interests of the people it
ought to be abandoned.
There is no sound reason to be adj
vanced why the entire community
should not bear the entire cost OF a
public improvement It is well known
fact, as Judge Phillips says, that in
many cases the opening and improving
of street far more benefits property
not at present liable for the construc-
ton, than it does the adjacent frontage.
The history of town and city expansion
is full Of such instances This, standing
alone, is sufficient to- present glaringly
the injustice of the present system.