The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1906-09-20


limits of a city, merely upon a question
of taxation, there should be created a
class of voters and non-voters. From the
foundation of our government when Ham,
ilton urged some such provision, states
men have feared 1t as likely to create an
arstocracy.
This section also seems to allow the
governing board of the city to change
the ward boundaries practically at will.
submit that this is contrary to estab-
lished law in this city, where the ward
boundaries are fixed at this time by the
legislature and further that some safe
guard ought to be thrown around this
power. If a governing body of a city
should in any election by the people have
any candidate or candidates that it fa-
Yored there might, in doubtful times, be
some attempt made before the election to
accomplish their end by gerrymandering
the different wards of the city.
Other Sections.
Sections 10 and IA give the right to con-
struct In the non-taXing district and as
sess against benefited property, sanitary
sewers, sidewalks and eurbng, under GER
tain restrictions
Section IS provides for the collection of
a street tax from the residents of the
non-talIng district for the maintenance
of the public roads and streets.
Section 49, for the payment by the Board
of Revenue to the city of one-half ct
the county road and bridge tax In pro-
portion to property situated within the
corporate limits of the city To be used in
the non-taxing district on the streets.
highways and bridges of the same.
If these powers are going to be given
and this non-taxing territory is really to
be considered a part of the city, it APP
pears to me that the full power to assess
for public improvements, full power to
axra and Inn, To- md
sanitary sewers, curbing and cement
sidewalks should be granted to the city;
and If such improvements are assessabie ,
in the taxing district they should be as
sessable in the non-taxing district against
the benefited property. My main reason
for saying this is that within a compar-
atively short time after the bill goes into
effect, If it ever does, the outskirts OF
the city will be very, very spotted, con-.
sisting of patches of non-taxng territory,g
ineXtricably mixed up together. It may
be necessary to pave or improve streets
or build storm sewers to relieve undesir-
able conditions, and yet this work would
be barred by these provisions, as only sec
lions of it could be done.
Section is denies the City Council au-
thority to cause to be inspected or SUI
pervised the construction of any building
or structure erected in the non-taxing
district or to prescribe rules or speclhca-
ings. except as to the sanitary connec4
lions of the non-taxng district and the
inspection Of property for the purpose of
enforcing sanitation and the protection of
public health.
What Might BE.
As the bill now stands as above Illus
trated, the Railway. Light and Power
company, the Water Works company, or
any manufacturing plant, may have it's
property put in the non-taxing district
even though situated in the heart of the
city. Some of it is in fact In the fire limits
at the present time Upon the transfer
being made under this section the build
ing laws of the city of Birmingham might
become inappcable. We could not con-
denim any of their structures or do any
thing with them, practically, except to sec
that they are hitched to the sanitary
sewer. This is an impossible condition. 1t
would tend to- raise the fire Insurance.
rates and to deprive other property Of
the protection which it would derive from
properly enforced building laws. Even IL
the amendment contemplated to the bill is
made, the same argument applies to the
outskirts of the city which may build up.
and probably in some instances will build
up thickly around property which viii
thus be exempted from the provisions of
our building laws.
Section twenty provides for the eollec-
ton of license taxes for persons, firms and
corporations engaged in business in tho
non-taxing district, both where capital
is employed and where no capital is em-
ployed
am aware that the supreme court OF
Alabama, in the case of Van Hook VS.. the
city OF Selma, held that for police pur-
poses merely license tax might be coll
lected for business done out of the cor
porate limits of the city and in the police
jurisdiction. The meaning of this decision,
however, was, it seems to me, that this
license was to be collected for police pur-
pose only, and was TO be limited to the ex-
pense or the approximate expense of the
supervision exercised by the city over the
business, and could not be levied for reve-
nue. purposes under any circumstances;
the levying of revenue tax under such
circumstances being practically taxation
without representation. In my judgment
the license tax indicated in section twenty
would probably be held to be taxation for
revenue purposes. and would therefore be
invalid; for, while the amount of the tax
is limited and is not left to the discre-
ton of the city council to say what tax
is reasonable under the circumstances,
still the limitation is seemingly so high
and the power to tax is granted over
such occupations, as that good part of it
at least would be taken out of the cate
CORY of taxation for police purposes
merely.