Webster City freeman. [volume] (Webster City, Hamilton County, Iowa) 1884-1946, 1913-03-25
Paving Assessments.

Times-Republican: Colncldent
with the plans to pave which are
now being considered by city coun-
ellis in many towns should be devils
ed more equitable method of as
sessing the cost to the property.
Most cities and towns now charge
up to the property abutting paved
street all of the cost Of the pave
ment for the entire length of the
street including the street and alley
intersections and wherever a corner
lot is paved on both street frontages
it has been assessed for four times
as much paving as an inside lot.
Manifestly this custom is exceed
ingly unjust to property owners and
the facts are that it is not in ac- 2
cordance with law The Iowa paw
ing law provides in substance that
property shall be assessed according
as it is actually benefited by street
improvement and no more and 1t
further provides that in no case
shall this assessment exceed one
fourth the actual value of the prop
erty. Because the one-fourth.sI inf~-
tation is so high as to let in practic-
ally the entire cost, city councils
have felt free to hold that the prop
erty benefit was equal TO the cost OF
paving and quite generally the
whole bill has been taxed to the lots
on the paved street. This saves the
general fund which is always over
drawn anyway.
Marshalltown owners of corner
lots appealed from their assessments
on the ground that the long side OF
a lot and the front side side, too,
made an assessment in excess OF the
actual benefit to the lot. Three
cases We're tried before two different
judges Of the district court and in
all cases the assessments We're held
to be in excess OF the benefits 10 the
property. Witnesses OF special
knowledge as to property values
were examined as TO the values OF
the lots before the street was paved
and after the preponderance % testi-
mony was against the city Counci's
contention that the actual benefit
was as much as the assessment OF
the full cost. Hence. in MARSHALL
-
ton OF corner lots paving 10 the
general public as we'll as all Of the
street intersections and alley cross
ings.
This plan is far more equitable
and unquestionably more legal, al
though the Marshalltown cases new
er went to the supreme court SO as
to actually establish the law. Su-
preme courts of other states. howev-l
er, have held repeatedly that there,
! is a public benefit in street improve
ment distinct and separate rom the
adjacent property benefit aud in the
newer state of Oklahoma lots within
avblock. Of a paved street, although
not on the street paved, are assessed
for, a special benefit because the
street improvement coming SO near
TO, them is considered TO have bene-
fitted all the property within the vi
entity. There is no question but
| what street pavement between a. res,
idence and the business center Of
| town benefits the residence property
even more than, pavement on the
side Of the lot just as railroads ben
eft towns because they provide the
means of transportation SO other
places. This public ben. III from
street, paving should be pa.6 for by
the public by a special levy Hpon al
property for street Improvement,
| leaving the property on toe paved
street to- pay only according 10 the
actual benefit or. special benefit re-
!, ceived and this must always be de-
I termined by a city council suhjeci to
+, review by the courts.