Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1911-11-03
OF COST OF EAST
MAIN STREET PAVING WILL
BE RESISTED.
CORNER LOT OWNERS
ASSESSED FULL COST
All Given Until Nov. 20 to Object and
East Main Street Property Owners
Have Employed Attorneys TO Resist
Their Assessment on Ground That
City Should Pay.

The que StlOn OF VINO pays Tor paving
in Marshalltown now promises to GO
to the courts again unless an agree
nent can be reached before Nov. ~
between the property owners and the
city council, as G. F. Kirby and tWen-
ty-four other property owners on Eas:
Main street have retained Judge Par
Sessment of their properties, and since
the council has in nearly every case
IN the Highview district, assessed cor
ner lots for the full cost of the paving,
there will PROBABLY be appeals and pos
sible litigation over that.
II would seem after all the litigation
endured over the asphalt paving in
which at least four cases were tried in
the district court and compromise set
Elements made in nearly forty others,
mostly involving corner lots, that a
! rule could be established for paving as
: sess:nents, but in the East Main
street work a new question arises.
/ Was the work a repair job or was the
street repave6? If ii was repair WORK
the city must pay for it. and if ii was
/ a new pavement the property can he
assessed. but il the property is as
sessed then how much has each lot
: been benefited by the concrete surface
ing over and above its value before the
! concrete was aid.
Corner Lots Stuck For Limit.
I In the case Of corner lots which were
. paved on two sides, or which We're
paved on one side after having been
previously paved on the other side, the
council mas adopted the rule of ap
praising the value Of TIE corner lot
and then, if the cost Of the new pave
u1ent did not exceed fourth of the
! value OF the lot. the full cost was as
sessed 20 the property.
The lots at the corner Of Jerome and
Fourth streets, belonging to Mrs. F. z.
Wheeler and to Mrs. Celia Shove have
been assessed for s423.7s and s45S93.
respectively, being the full cost of the
Jerome street paving altho these lots
mad been previously assessed for paw
! ing on Fourth street.
Likewise with the ". H. Morris lot
at the corner OF Main and Fifth ave-
nue. II is assessed s105.0S for the fun
cost. when this lot had been previously
! assessed for 100 feet Of pavement on
/ Fifth avenue. The c. F. Kirby lot. at
! the same intersection, is assessed for
/ the full cost on the long side of the
residence lot. which had been previous
/ ly paved on Fifth avenue. and also ON
/ the long side Of the lot next east.
| In the case Of the H. r McMahon
( lot. at the corner Of Fourth and Park
streets. and the G. ". Everist lot. I'M
( i'm proved at the corner of Park and
Fifth streets. both OF which were
/ paved on two sides by the present i'm
provement the council assessed only
/ portion OF the cost. s373.s9 ont Of
total of s573.o5 for the Mcmahon lot.
and $3.50 out Of a total of s491.17 for
! the Everist lot.
/ Former Appeal Cases.
! In case any Of these corner lot own
ers object the council may modify its
assessment by. agreement before Nov.
/ %. or in case of an appeal and litiga
ton the question of how much has the
I lot been actually benefited will be in
/ volved In the Morgan and Leech
cases. tried in the district court sew
eral years ago. the decisions in which
governed the settlement which was
made with some forty lot owners. the
attorneys for the lot owners sub
poenaed witnesses to testify as to the
value of the property before being
paved and after being paved. and
upon TIE question Of the actual special
! benefit 10 the property DEGREES in both
cases were entered relieving the
property Of large share of the cost
Of paving.
It has been reasoned by attorneys
that if a residence property as valu-
able as the 3. A Morgan home was
not benefited by paving on two sides
q.
frontage no other corner lot in a resi-
dence section could be benefited that
much. Because Of this decision. which
resulted in other corner lot owners
settling for so per cent of the cost Of
the paving on the long side. with
some Ave years interest waived. the
old council was ready to adopt the rule
that corner lots would not be assessed
for more pavement on the side than
had already been assessed on the front
In the case Of lot 60x1s0 feet this
would have amounted to an assess
ment for all the front and one-third
the side. but in every case the ques-
ton involved is as to how much more
is the lot worth after being paved
|, than before ANY assessment above
the actual special benefit is conisca-
ton. Some states recognize in law
that there are two benefits In street
paving. one to the property and an
other to the public. and their statutes
apportion the assessment. part to the
property and part to the public.
City ATTORNEY Nnrthup says that he
has not directed the present assess
ment Of corner lots. so it NAV be pre-
sumed that the council intends to re-
wise It's assessments upon showing by
the property owner.
AS far as indicated there Is no claim
made Of noncompliance Of contract,
but rather only Of the manner Of
assessment in proportion to the bene-
| Ats.