Brownsville herald. [volume] (Brownsville, Tex.) 1910-current, 1912-04-29
THE STREET PAVING TAX.

The Herald understands that at
this afternoons meeting Of the city
council. the matter of the assessment
against the property owners for
street paving is the agenda.
1t also understands that the re-
port of the committee On streets will
recommend that on Elizabeth, Wash
ington and Levee streets, in the paw
ing distriSt, property owners shall
be assessed $4.09 per running foot
OF frontage, and that on the side
streets, which are about ten feet
narrower. each property owner shall
be assessed S2.S7 per running foot
of frontage.
1t is also the recommendation OF
thaA committee that the street rail
way company pay $2.76 per square
yard of paving laid on their right
of way. The yardage to be paid for
by the street railway company APP
pears to be not thoroughly clear, but
it has been reliably stated that the
cost assessed against them will be
about o%ne-fourth of the cost of paw
ing the main streets and n third
OF the cost on the narrower streets,
in which the tracks are laid.
WAKE Elizabeth street-assume a
pp@ty frontage of so feet.
The street Is 40 feet wide. There
fore in so feet frontage the street
contains 1000 square feet, or 222.22
square yards of paving.
According to the ordinance, the
city pays o%ne-third Of the cost and
the property owners on either side
pay one-third each. One third of the
area is 74.07 square yards which at
$2.76 equals ~$2O4.45.
y Fifty feet at $4.O9 per running
foot, which is the proposed plan of
making the assessment is $204.50.
So the assessment appears on its face
to be reasonable and just.
But the street railway company
has to pay it quota. Where does that
come in and what is going to be done
with the money!
Assuming that the street railway
proportion amount to one-third of
the cost OF paving the street then
their proportion would be $136.34
for each 80 feet run of their track,
and a 80 foot frontage also. instead
of $204.50, which il is proposed TO
charge the latter. The difference OF
these two sums figures out $1.36 per
running foot.
What will become Of this S1.36 per
running foot which ii is proposed TO
assess as an extra burden upon the
property owners? The Herald I'M
derstands that the plan is to use this
money in the street fund for repair
and cleaning purposes
If such proceedings are really con-
templated, is 1t not time for the prop
erty owners on the streets having
car tracks to enter a protest?
This proposition not only appears
illegal. but would impose an unjust
burden upon the property
who are already taxed to pay their
share of the bonds issued for these
street Improvements, besides the
amount assessed against the AUDITING
property. Why should the property
OF a particular class of owners be
assessed extra TO provide a fund
which should be covered by the gen
eral tax levy. and which benefits all
tax payers alike?
The question of interest on defer
red payments is also to be considered
at this meeting. On this, The Herald
stands by its original opinion. The
city only pays five per cent on the
money which ii borrowed to build
the paving, and has no right TO
charge the property owners eight
per zen on deferred payments, Six
per cent would be reasonable. and
six percent notes find ready sale.