Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1914-05-28

Il
eminent authorities on the subjects
Of classification of roads and frontage
tax assessment methods, he conclud-
ed by urging the adoption of defin-
tie policy in the whole matter. :
Ed. Towse, whose topic was the va.
lue of good roads, opened with an
argument against the 100 per cent as
sessment theory, contending that the
proceeds of general taxation belonged
to the whole community. He related
the hardships of trip he had lately
taken around the island from the bad
places in the belt road, maintaining
that such roads were a tax on all
who used them He knew of FIVE ma
chimes and % tourists gone back to
San Francisco In twelve months ow-
ing to the condition of the road
around this island, and each tourist
was worth at least $500 TO the COM
munity. The damage to Honolulu
business from bad roads he figured az
a thousand dollars day. Quoting I'll.
Gooding Fields remar that s'the peo-
pie of Hawaii deserve good roads"
he repeated a statement that had
been published to the effect that it
cost $40 to put 800 worth of work
on roads. Coming to the subject OF
the frontage tax laws he concluded
by saying The men placed In po-
sition of rule should take hold OF
things II they cannot conduct this
million dollar corporation as 1t should
be. there is something wrong either
with them or with the system under
which they work.
Arthur G. Smith, deputy attorney.
general, gave comprehensive legal
opinion on the acts in question, quot
ing federal and state decisions on
similar laws His conclusion was that
the statutes were valid and could be
enforced up to the 100 per cent as.
sessment limit
You mean subject to the veto of
the owners of 55 per cent of the prop
erty inyolved?. he was asked.
"Yes. subject to the veto, and |
think that Is a bad veto"
Giles H. Gere regretted that he had
not had time to prepare . set speech
on the topic of classification of roads
for frontage tax assessment purposes.
Before taking up that subject he
wished to controvert the statements
made at various times alleging over
head expense of the road department
ranging from 40 to 20 per cent. This
percentage was derived from includ.
ing the entire labor cost, street sprin.-
king and sweeping in overhead ex.
.penses, which was an. absurd book
keeping method of the past. II would
be as fair to charge the cost Of gar.
bage collection to Overhead ex.
pense.
He would classify roads as business
streets, residence section streets and
,boulevards or main tii6roughfares.
There should beeno discrimination be-.
tween business and residence streets,
the cost of both of which, in his OPP.
inion, should be assessed entirely
against the property benefited The
charge on business street property,
owing to its value, would be mere
bagatelle. Fort street owners would
no doubt gladly have paid the entire
cost of paving that thoroughfare, If IT.
had been put up to them, rather than
60 without the Improvement. The
boulevard was the only class of road
entitled to any aid from the public
treasury. 1t was the Chinese and
Japanese farmers and storekeepers
that suffered most from the bad con
dition of the belt road, and these and
other taxpayers along that highway
were the ones that should be consid.
cred rather than the occasional tuu.
rist and pisasure-seeker.
Supervisor Lester Petrie was billed
to speak on the attitude OF the super
visors toward the frontage tax laws.
He read speech dealing in general
terms with the responsible ies Of pub.
lie servants, but having little about
the frontage tax. With regard to that
matter he quoted with approval the
opinion Of Mr.. Campbell, to the effect
that different sections of the city
could not receive fair deal from
division of cost of improvements be-
tween the city and property owners.
w. C. Aehi professed himself in
favor of the laws, but contended their
enforcement was impracticable Yet,
after urging that action should await
amendment of the laws by next legis
lature, he advocated an entirely diff
ferent system. namely, the addition
of IA of ] per cent to the property
tax to provide a road fund. His main
contention was that the banks would
not buy the frontage tax bonds.
Mr. Sheedy interrupted Achi on the
point of order that he was exceeding
the time limit. and when the latter
finished called for action on the rec
concentrations stated by Mr.. Reid.
ford.
Mr.. Reidford considered this would
be waste of time, saying the main
purpose of the meeting was to get
an expression from the public to
guide the supervisors.
Ed Towse replied to remarks on
his speech, and Harry Murray made
a strong appeal to the supervisors to
do their duty as the legislature order.
ed. Robert Scott spoke to similar eff
feet.
Daniel Logan then offered the reso
luton of which the first section above
printed is part. This brought on q
warm debate. In which Messrs. Camp
bell, w. r. Foster, Clark, J. F. Child.
Towse, Logan, II. 8. Johnson and J.
- 1 -