The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1913-08-01
FRIDAY. AUGUST /, 1913.
CORNER LOT ASSESSMENT.

AO1I-N LIN A&'h
During the recent discussion OF
erect Improvements there was ralseh
q question as TO the manner in whlch
/ corner lots are or may be assessed tor
street improvements. There is some
. lack of clear understanding Of the
manner in which such taxes are lev
I led, and SOME confusion as a result.
/ Some property owners have the ldea
that the Improvement taX is assessed
on a frontage basis. the corner lot
paying for its frontage on the street
and also for its frontage on the ave-
nue.. According to this an inside %
foot lot would be assessed for % feet
{ of frontage on the street only. while
y the neighboring corner lot would he
assessed for % feet on the street and
14O feet on tie avenue, or 165 feet
in all. This is not correct.
! There Vas a time when assessments
= were made on this basis. The first
i cedar block pavement laid in Grand
!. Forks was paid for on this plan. Tn
less we are mistaken the plan was
J. changed before cedar blocks We're laid
f. in the second paving district created.
? Al any rate, it was about that time
: that a change was effected.
In a decision rendered by the Uni
ted States supreme court it was de-
/ clared that a street Improvement tax
I levied on the basis of frontage was
unconstitutional. 1t was further de-
/ clared that there was but one basis
be levied, namely. on the basis Of
benefits to the property. Tha decis-
ion has since been followed neces-
sarily in court decisions of all kinds,
in legislation, and in the proceedings
of assessment boards and city
! cils.
The law Of our w state, which
follows the decision referred to. is
that in each city there shall be a spe-
cial assessment commission which
shall determine the benefits to the
property of any district from any
special improvement, and which shall
then apportion the total cost of the
lIflpIoNe!!eHl 70 tlt property pSiicilt
ed. the apportionment to be made in
proportion to benefits, and in no case
to exceed those benefits. Due notice
OF assessment is given to property
owners of the assessment, and oppor-
tunity is afforded them for protest.
property has been unjustly assessed
the commission is required to rectify
the error. The list then goes to the
city council, and again there is OPP
portunity for protest and correction.
Any person who has failed in either
kof these cases to secure redress of his
5ust grievance by either assessment
commission or city council may then
take his case to the courts. If it is
tfound that there has been followed
any basis of assessment other than
that Of benefits derived, or if the as
sessment exceeds the benefits to the
property, the assessment is not worth
the paper IN which it is written, and
a tax levied under it cannot be col
1ected.
These facts are Well known to every
person who is in the slightest degree
familiar with the laws governing spe-
cial assessments, and especially to ev-
cry man whose official duties place
him in contact with the making Of
such assessments.
1t is evident that all lots of equal
size and like situation are equally ben
Gifted by any Improvement that may
be made. A so foot lot derives twice
ment that is derived by a 25 Zoe lot
in the same block. Hence. while the
benefit is the basis which must be
used. the front foot is the unit which
may properly be used in computing.
What shall be done with the corner
lot? The 25 foot lot is the unit which
IS usually considered. The inside lot
has a frontage Of 25 feet. The corner
lot has a frontage Of 25 feet on the
street and 40 feet on another, 165
eet in all. In other words, its total
frontage is 2-3 times that OF the in
side lot . Does 1t derive s 2-3 times
the benefit derived by the inside lot
4iOLi oily SlIeeL Improvement. II Will
be ridiculous to say that 1t does. Then
It canno be assessed on that basis,
n it is not SO assessed. In actual
practice our assessment commission
has said that The corner lot is benefit
ed about 80 per cent more than the
inside lot. That seems a fairly rea-
sonable estimate. To make it much
lower would involve an injustice to the
owner Of the side lot. To make it ma
terially higher would certainly invali-
date the tax, for no court would up
hold an assessment that penalized the
corner lot in a much higher percen-
tage.
It would be well for property own
ers who may be contemplating n
sort Of street improvement to inform
themselves thoroughly ON these points.
They may rest assured thai on all inn
pfovements involving the grading,
curling, draining ana paving or gray
cling Of streets the Is feet on the
corner viii b assessed just about 80
per sent moro than the Is feet next
Ito r. not much moro ana not much