Evening journal., 1909-02-11
OPPOSES new
PAVING BILL
]. i. Banning Thinks the Act
an Imposition on Certain
Property Holders

The most vigorous opponent Of the
proposed bill Of the Board of Trade
to assess abutting property owners for
street paving is j. L. Banning. Mr..
Banning yesterday sent a letter to
State Senator Thomas NJ Monaghan,
urging the Senator to help defeat the
measure.
The letter follows:
Wilmington. Del. Feb. 10, 1909.
Hon. Thomas NJ. Monaghan,
Dover. Delaware.
Dear Sir: II has come to my knowl-
edge that bill will soon be presented
to the Legislature, the object of which
is to provide for the paving of the
streets of Wilmington-two-th of
the cost to be paid by the property
owners, and in case Of failure by the
owners to pay such cost in cash. or by
annual instalments as defined, then
lien will be placed against the property
the Same TO be collected by the di-
rectors of the Street and Sewer De-
partment. who viii authorize the
sherif to sell the property.
II have not as yet been able to seq
a copy of this bill. but 1 understand
from members of the legislature and
others that the above paragraph. cor
rectly describes its character 1t makes
two classes of property holders. the
first of which has had its streets paved;
the second has not.
THE expense of street paving for the
| first class, has already been betrayed
from common fund contributed to by
taxes collected from both classes. But
/ II this bill becomes a law, then the
second TO which I and many others
/ belong Will receive but one-third of
such paving expenses from this COM
mon fund: the other two-thirds must
be met bv the landholders as indivi-
dusls' and of course. those who are
situated as 1 am. protest emphatically
against so gross an imposition.
THE land that l hold was included
within the city limits about thirty-five
years ago at time when il was prac-
tically farm land; this was done re-
CARELESS of the wishes of the holders.
10 the contrary It has since been
taxed accordingly. without commensur-
ate return to show for it. In fact. in
the matter of civic Improvement, in
paved streets and the like there is very
little to show for it as yet The condi-
tions with many other landholders. are
the same or similar to mine. The taxes
their holdings have paid, have assisted
for a long period to pave the streets in
other parts of the city; frequently in
localities so remote, as to be of no
practical interest to them.
such taxes have been spent for the
benefit of others. and for the city in
general, but with the right under an
established rule to demand, that when
their turn should come, then in COM
mon Justice, however long it might be
delayed, they would have their streets
paved from the common fund, to which
their holdings had so long contributed
This bill saws no to all this. 1t says
that obligations that exist under a long
established rule, shall be ignored and
J repudiated. without fulhllment. It prac-
tically says the money some of you
have contributed for a third of a cen
turv past has been spent on other peo-
pies streets. now you can go without
streets or pay for them yourselves and
the sheriff viii collect the bill.
But cannot realize that the Legis.
lature viii entertain such a bill seri.
ously. If il is represented to that body
Il think that such a law cannot be
enforced if it is passed nor is It fail
lldl ldubHDlutIo Sllpull nave 10 spent
their money fighting such laws in thu
courts. hope you will oppose thu
bill with all the influence you can brins
to bear.
'There are many others who shar'
nv views. A word more and I will
close. The names Of parties alleged t
r. be the promoters of this bill have beer
mentioned to me. If, for reasons bes
! known TO themselves. they want Z
! pay for their paving let them go ahea'
and do it, but deny them authority
> under the conditions that have existed
to coerce others into doing the SAM
a without due regard to their interests.
y Respectfully yours,
J. L. Banning"