The record-union., 1899-06-27
THE STREET ASSESSMENT DECIS
IONS AGAIN.


sessment laws which apportion the cost
of street paving among the owners OF
property fronting on the street has Gre
ated a great stir, and the press gener-
ally is considering the effects of con-
frmation of these ndecisions by ap-
pellate tribunals
The Oakland Enquirer" expresses
genuine larm at the prospect, declaring
that millions of assessments will be i'm
periled, taxation increased and double
taxation imposed by compelling those
who have once paid under the assess
ment system to pay again under the
porary fsays:
The decisions, unless stopped or
turned, aside, will sweep away a method
OF taxation which has been growing
rapidly, and which, all things consid-
cred, appears to be the fairest, for
many purposes, that has yet been de-
vised. Originally all work ordered done
by a municipality was paid for out of
the proceeds of general taxation, but
as some improvements benefit princi-
pally the locality in which they are
created, the plan was adopted of as
sessing the cost upon adjacent prop
erty. Such Improvements generally en-
nance the value of property adjacent,
and Therefore it is called on to bear the
cost of them. Like other methods of
taxation, this one can be abused, and in
some cities such abuse has been fla
grant. certain property being prac-
tfeally confiscated by heavy assess
ments, while other property escaped its
just proportion of the burden.
1t is added that the courts, holding
as they have done in Sonoma County
and in Missouri, appear to adopt the
theory that the only Justification for
local assessment is that the assessed
property will be benefited. But it is
urged there is another justification,
namely, that it has become the recog
nized and accepted method of perform
ing certain improvements, and that as
every one. who buys real estate does SO
with that knowledge, no injustice Is in
volved in the assessment of frontage
property for street Improvements.
We submit that this is begging the
question. The issue is not what is es-
tablished by custom and forbearance
under long usage, but what is right in
ascertaining benefits. If the street is
for the sole use of the frontage owner,
he should of course bear the cost of
opening and paving it. If it is for the
benefit OFT the whole public, equity de-
mands that the entire public shall bear
the cost From that simple proposition
it seems to us there is no escape.
BUTT Is urged by our contemporary,
which. comedies that the frontage as
sessynent system is far from fiawless;
that under the general system political
evils would grow up.
First, the rate of city taxtion would
be raised from % to 90 per cent, with
THE incidental injustice that the prop
erty owners who have already paid for
their own Improvements will be called
on to help pay for improving all the
cheap property on the outskirts Of the
city. But the second evil, that Of Sec
tional strife to divert improvements to
the portions of the city where they are
least needed, will be worse. Thisfeature
of the situation threatens to increase
political difficulties UNNECESSARILY and
as especially to be dreaded if the sim
pie, natural method Of giving street
Improvements to those who are willing
ito pay for them is rendered unavail-
able.
This Is the strongest argument that
can be advanced against the general
burden bearing which we advocate. 1t
is the most trenchant and effective OBJ
lection that can possibly be made to
the policy Of the decisions referred to-.
But we are not concerned with policies
so much as we are with the law. The
couJ is in question assail the legality of
the frontage assessments from the be-
ginning. They declare that they never
have been lawful; that they trespass
upon individual constitutional rights;
that they result in the taking of prop
erty without due process of law, and
are thus defiant Of substructural prin-
ciple of free government, lying at the
very root Of our liberties.
1t may be conceded that under the
general system political manipulation
might impose upon a community gem
orally cost for purely local benefit. But
that liability exists already. Political
influence Of the lowest order enters in
and robs the people right and left
whenever they permit it, by construc-
ton Of streets in defiance of the calls
of the contract. We have in this city
to-day instances of street improvement
SO hagrantly in violation of the speci-
fications, that property owners are re-
fusing to pay and the contractors dare
not sue to enforce payment.
We have accepted streets treated here
as is done in other cities by a. system
that panders to political power by
doubling the street work. paying one
class of men to haul on material which
another class must be paid to gather
up and haul away. We have jobs such
as that on Tenth street in this city
done under political manipulation. State
and municipal. so rotten that the Of
fense smells to heaven. Again we have