The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1902-04-07
DOUBLE ASSESSMENT
FOR WATER MAINS
Mr.. John A. Baker Complains
to Commissioners.
Points Out What He Declares to Be al
AbsuTdity and an Injustice to
Property Owners.

NJ. John A. Baker recently addressed
the District Commissioners complaining
OF a double assessment for water main on
a lot owned by him AT the corner Of Thir-
ty-hrst and K Streets northwest He
states that an assessment for the main
was made by the corporation OF George
town and paid and that he was also as
sessed for 125 feet Of main on Thirty-fr
Street but that the assessment was can
called under the decision in the Burgdorn
case. He adds that he is now assessed
Tor twenty-five feet Of main on Thirty
first Street.
With a statement Of the facts Mr.. Baker
enters into a discussion OF the general
question. of assessments for water mains,
saying in part:
The act Of July 8, 1898, provides for
the reassessment Of water main taxes
which had been Cancelled. AS no assess
ment was levied on he K Street front, a
reassessment was impossible. Ny con-
tention is that any assessment for water
mains was Illegal because Of being in
direct conflict with the act OF June %,
1873. under which the assessments against
the properties OF the late Columbus Al
exauder and others were Cancelled; and If
that contention cannot be maintained.
then 7 cannot be taxed for mo-e than the
twenty-five feet on Thirty-frst Street IN
der the act Of August i, 1884. The laws
Of 1885 and 1898 we're evidently meant to
apply 70 mains laid on both fronts after
the passage Of those acts. as do the laws
providing for specific improvements
The main in question was ordered and
laid prior 10 the act OF 1854. and was
/ therefore ordered and laid under the
provisions OF prior laws. II the assess
ment comes within the scope Of the laws
Of 1894 and 1888. IL is certain that ] am
entitled to a credit for the assessment for
I the main laid along x Street already paid
I for, for section 3 Of the act OF July @ 1898,
provides. That in any assessment or re-
/ assessment made under provisions OF this
act the owner OF any lot CT parcel Of land
shall be credited with any amount which
may have been heretofore paid upon any
water main tax OF assessment levied
/ against such lot or parcel OF land.
/ In respect 70 the suggestion that sew
eral dwellings could be built on the
I Thirty-frst Street front Of the lot. ! sub
nit that il is business property fronting
! on business street. and 10 build dwell
I inRs on 10 wOulC lessen its value In such
/ case the depth would be but 81 50 feet.
u
I be built on corner lots having 3 feet
I front and 100 feet depth which, under the
act OF 1894, were taxed on their 20 feet
I front and cannot be taxed again on their
I 100 feet front on which such dwellings
might he built
THE suggestion that the law in the
/ case is subject to doubt, ami that some
| law should be devised 20 make the sys-
! TEN for assessing for water mains clearer
and simpler, may be true; but surely the
I taxpayer should not be subjected 10 the
/ expense Of having doubtful laws inter
preted for the Government. If this tax
/ be maintained. the method OF assessment
I 20 be followed must tax corner lots for
mains laid before 1884 on both fronts. and
when laid after 1894 on only the excess OF
! 100 feet on the other front
/ Under such a method two corner lots
/ Of the same dimensions IN the same
| square fronting on parallel streets would
pay different taxes for a main laid along
/ their other front-different taxes for the
same main This case is not a matter OF
any Importance IN respect OF the sum
/ involved. but IL is the right OF the thing
[ that Is important"
Mr.. F. W W Griffin. the Assistant As
/ SCISSOR, has forwarded a recommendation
z 70 the Commissioners that the request re-
Gently made for cancellation OF a water
main assessment against part cf Tot and
l -ots 4. 8 and g. square G6g, made by the
attorney for ID. a. Sanford be refused. A
| reassessmeDt was levied. Mr.. Griffin
states, about one year after Mr.. Sanford
acquired title to the property and after
/ date of tax certificate 10 which the writ
( ers refer, consequently the case does not
I come under the scope OF the act Of May
/ -, 1892, relating 10 taxes and tax sales.