Frostburg mining journal. [volume] (Frostburg, Md.) 1871-1913, 1902-11-22
Seeking for II just Rule of


Assessments.
Officials of several cities have recently
been quoted in favor of some better rule
for assessing the cost of public improve
ments. Different remedies for the pres
ent unsatisfactory methods have been
suggested. But there is one clear and
he kept in view which officials do not
always recognize.
That is the very foundation rule of all
special assessments requiring them to be
based upon special benefits. While this
is concededly the only possible founda-
ton for Just assessments, it is peculiar
fact that the laws very generally disre-
gard 1t when providing the method of
assessment. The common method of
starting with the assumption that the
property benefited at all must be bene-
fitted to an amount equal to the total cost
of the improvement is so manifest and
so ludicrOus a NON seYHitHr as to deserve
place in the humors of the law.
But it has its tragic side. While in
possibly the great majority of instances
the rule works fairly well, there are i'll
the aggregate large number of in
stances in which the most rank injustice
is perpetrated under the form of law.
One instance in which a man having a
considerable tract of land worth many
Thousand dollars on the border of a city
was financially ruined by an assessment
for what the law termed an improve
ment to his property is typical of many
others.
Assessments for so-called improve
ments to property, when made to an
amount greater than the total value of
the property after it is improved, con-
stitute a wrong which cannot be per-
manently tolerated by any just govern
ment. The only reason they are toler
ated at all is that the victims are few
and the beneficiaries of the wrong are
many. If that is sufficient ground for
permanently preserving principle of
confiscation of private properly for the
benefit of other people, then there may
be no remedy. But. if a question is
never settled until it is settled right, this
question is still open.
A rule of assessment as clear as the
principle ON which it is based is perfectly
simple, and yet seems to be ignored in
most places. That is to assess all private
property specially benefited, not by any
arbitrary division of the total cost, but
by simple appraisal of the amount of
benefits. 1t is just as easy to appraise
the added value to piece of property
by virtue of an improvement and then
determine the amount to be assessed
thereon as it is to appraise the total value
of the property, which is annually done
by assessors for general taxation.
The adoption of this rule would make
it necessary for the public to pay out of
its general fund any deficiency of the
cost that might remain after the prop
erty benefited had paid the full amount
| of benefits, and there is no possible
reason why this should not be done. II
it is in reality public improvement, as
| it purpOrts to be, then it is the business
of the public to pay any part of the cost
above the amount of special benefits to
particular property.
| If it is not worth that to the public,
the improvement should not be made.
Ordinarily the special benefits may be
quite sufficient to pay the whole cost.
If SO, the adoption of this simple and
Just method does not impose on the pub
lie any burden. The only question is
whether, in case the special benefits do
not amount to the total cost, the de-
ficiency is to be unjustly saddled upon
certain chosen victims, or whether it
shall be borne by the public which re-
ceives the benefits.
The justice of the simple method of
directly assessing the special benefits to
each piece of property benefited and pay
ing any part of the cost remaining out
of the public funds is so clear that no
amount of argument can make it clearer.
The only argument against tits that this
| plan might cost the public something
| which il does not now have to pay, but
this expense can be avoided only by
charging it upon individuals unjustly
and dishonesty and Comment.