Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1905-08-24
THE CONSTITUTION.
CITY and Town Taxation.

To the Editor of the Alexandria Gazette.
The present constitution of Virginia pro-
bibits cities and towns from imposing any tax
or assessment upon abutting landowners Tor
street improvements. This prohibition chang
ed the policy of ALL or nearly al, OF the cities
of the State, a"d has greatly retarded mun'c'
ipal Improvements.
II Is becoming more and more apparent that
the prosperity of every city depends largely
upon the condition of its streets. quick ana
comfortable communication between dlHereh'
parts Of city facilitates business Smootn'
clean streets stimulate the pride OF the oiti'
zens. and encourage all kinds Of improve
mepts. Since the paving of King street with
yitrifed brick there has been rapid I'M
movement in sidewalks, store fronts and prop
ertv generally along that street.
The prosperity of any city Is increased Dy
favorable impressions made upon strangers,
esnecially upon those seeking homes or IN
vcstments. Rough and dirty streets not only
fail 10 attract. but actually repel those who
might otherwise contribute to the business
life of the city. Every dollar put mo per
manent street Improvements Will come PACK
TO the people in the form OF increased Dusl-
ness. and TO the city in the form o, greater re-
ceipts from taxes. Many OF the most careiuI,
conservative and prosperous business men IN
y W
saving that their own property upon King
street and that of Others has been enhanced
in value by the improved paving, IN some
cases twenty-five per cent or more, ana IN
none less than ten per cen. No person VINO
owns properly upon King street has yet beeh
heard TO saw that the value Of his property
has not been increased far in excess OF me
amount paid as the special assessment. IL
cannot be doubted that similar increase
would result from the improvement oil other
streets. lie
How can this Improvement be secured!
There are three ways: The abut;ing land'
owne rs NAV bear the whole expense; the city
NAV bear the whole expense; or, the expense
NAV be borne partly by the land owners ana
partly by the city, Which plan is the ialresl
and most effective?
Manifestly. il would be a great hardship 10
charge the entire cost of street improvement.
upon the abutting land owners. IL is true that
Inc land owners are sure TO be benefited, per-
hans 10 an extent even more than suihcleht
10 cover the entire outlay for that purpose.
But the city also is benefited to the extent OF
the increased amount received from taxes ir0ni
the property Immediately affected ah1 ny
reason of the general uplift OF values when
follows every extensive improvement All
taxpayers Of city are benefited by the per
manent improvement Of any street; IGere
fore il would be unjust to put the whole bur
den of such improvement upon the aDuttlI
land owners, especially as they are aireauy
taxed for sidewalks and sewers.
The next question is, Should the city bear
tho whole cost of street improvements IN
strict in .tce it should not, The ideal plan OF
taxation is that its burdens should be exactly
nroporiioned II its benefits. This ideal IS no'
generally obtainable, but IN most cases II may
1 tl,a rl,la a
nro5inp a street is borne by the city, the citi-
lens whose property is situated a mile from
the street paws in taxes as large share OF thS
cost of the Improvement as the man whose
property is located upon the improved street
| Vet the Improvement may benefit the latter
| hundred times more than il does the former
| WHY. then. should the latter not pay larger
share of the cost; The person whose properly
| i situated upon an improved street should
nav a special assessment equal to the extern
10 which his property is enhanced IN value ny
the improvement over and above the genera
enhancement Of values which comes from ina
source to the city generally. Ihat Is IN
theory, In practice, the city IS not usualIl
financially able to make extensive. permanen
street improvements without assistance,
| is found very difficult 10 induce the lan'
owners upon any street, or upon any square
TO agree TO assist the city in bearing tins e1
pense. When it is proposed to furnish an!
street with free improvements all the street
are clamorOus for them an the contention De
tween rival sections j. apt to kill the .propo
sition. Even small special tax would pre-
vent this rivalry.
I'm short. il has been demonstrated IN tn
city of Alexandria that the plan of dlvidin
the cost Of street Improvements between Tn
city and the abutting land owners is the on
| L 1 81 q h. mr.
The assessments may be divided into install
ments to give the least inconvenience TO tn
property owners in order that everybody ma
be benefited and nobody injured.
Several months ago the undersigned pr'
pared a bill proposing an amendment TO IN
constitution Of Virginia on this subject. In
fact was communicated to the city counc
of Alexandria and il is said that they unan
mously endorsed the plan. 1t IS expecie
J that they will actively cooperate IN hecurlii
favorable action upon the measure at li
next session of the legislature. This amend
ment provides that city or town may levy
sueciai assessment upon abutting land owne
for street improvements not exceed ng on
half of the cost Of such improvements, ana IL
in excess Of the peculiar benefits resnltin
, therefrOm,
] The proposed amendment does not requll
that such assessments be levied, but simp
permits them. The charters of the sever
cities. and the councils acting und
these charters, msy levy such assessment
! or not. according 10 local requirements.
order TO become operative this amendmel
, | must be approved by the Legislature at
next two sessions, and ratified by the Poop
of the s. te II is earnestly hoped that a
e friends of street improvements and OF mum
2 ipal progress generally will give the mea
. ure their hearty support.
Respectfully yours
e LEWIS II. MACHEN.
? August -. 1905.
' Sick headache results from disorde