Waterbury evening Democrat., 1905-02-03
FAlRER TAXATION.
Hay Ds Secured for Waterbury People
 at This Session.

- SsssS SOSSsWSss
 Although nothing has been said about 1t in the aldermanic chamber, it is understood that the city officials will ask for a charter amendment at the present session of the general assem- ply which will make taxation in Wa terbury little fairer than it is at tho present time. Many sections of the outside districts are as well supplied with water as those on the inside and so long as this is so there is no reason why all should not be taxed on the same basis for the maintenance and eN- tension of the system. The rate is the same for the use of water and 1t is nothing short of hold up'' game to put all the cost of maintenance Oh property situated in the second dis, trict. The only explanation anybody ever gave for this condition of affairs vas that it escaped the notice of those who had the matter ill hand when the act of consolidation was passed. The injustice of the thing was quite appar- ent then, but it is more so now, vast sums of money being expended since <h the high service and another bond issue of S15,000 recommended for the same purpose. This outlay was under taken to meet the needs of residents iii the outside districts, and it is ridicu- . lous to think that under the present system of taxation outside property has to pay none of the expense incident to construction and maintenance, espe, cially now when it has been decided that the city cannot charge consumers nn thn rfcid tba a,1,icn than those on the inside pay The same thing might be said with refcr- ence to real estate. The full taxation district ends in the neighborhood of Pine and Cooke streets, and for q con- siderable distance beyond that the standard price of a 50X100 feet build ing lot is about $2.500. In other parts of the town, notably the south end, the eastern section and in Brooklyn, the full taxation district takes in large tracts of land that people cannot dis pose of at any price and when q lot is sold it rarely brings a third of what Is paid for the same amount of land ill some of the outside districts. What fairness is there in compelling one DOT tion of the people to pay full taxes on lots that are not worth oyer $500 each while their ncighbors are charged only half taxes on lots that sell for $25OO each and more? These are fit subjects for the board of aldermen, but they have been beautifully silent about them during the discussion on charter amendments. They had no time to de- vote to these questions, all their spare moments being directed toward hatch- ing up schemes to entrench their per sonal friends ill office so securely that no future administration could dislodge them. To some people this kind of talk may not look just right in cold type, but just the same there is not a man connected with the city govern ment, or any place else, who can trot out anything in refutation of these statements. Indeed, che might carry this a great deal further and then he would not be half through. Of course there is q reason why this is so, and probably the best that could be cited is that the city government now as well as in the past is dominated over to great extent by owners of prop erty in the outside districts. and no matter how much men may preach about honesty, few are so just that they will refuse to hold good things that come to them in this way What was it that prompted the change of base with reference to the taxation for parks! The politicians will tell you it was because you cannot legally as Sess the outside districts for parks, but they don't budge about the other and more serious obstacle put in the way when aldermen who reside in the outside district declared that they would not vote for the measure in the form in which it first appeared. If the charter stood in the way. why didn't they have the obstacle removed hy an amendment? Was it because the board was loath to ask for char ter amendment! Not likely. The real trouble came in the shape of protest from the outside district and then it was polished off by announcing that the outside district is peopled largely by farmers and it would not be fair to tax them for parks because they would never visit them. This is tine height of nonscnse. Whatever prcter- siops Waterbury had to being an agri- cultural district fifty years ago. it has none now. Just think of letting the residents of SimonsvilIc, Columbia boulevard. the Watertown road and various other places out of paying something towards maintaining parks on the ground that they are too busy on their farms to spend an hour O. so in such places once in while. It is no disgrace to he q farmer. but none of the parties included in the excepted territories look wholly to the soil for q livelihood and where it can he shown that they profit in common with oth- CTS by public Improvements they slnuld he nlAlinrI tn nay nn cnIIitah hl..