Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1914-10-17
ASSESSMENTS FOR BENEFITS
SUBJECT OF INVESTIGATION
Alleged Unfairness of Present Method of
Condemning Land Cited by George
Y. Worthington.

I ings. advertising and jurors fees and
assess the total proportionately against
abuttlng property as benefits. This
would seem fair, as undoubtedly alley
! facilities Will benefit the property and
! owners should be glad to paw their
share. and so they are after the alley
has been opened, but unfortunately in
majority of cases actual physical
| construction of the alley or street does
| not take place for months, and in many
| cases years. after the assessment has
| become lien on the property drawing
| interest, and if not paid the property
| can be sold for delinquent taxes
! am told that it has happened that prop
| erty has actually been sold for benefit
assessments before the physical work
i was even started. Is it right to ask
! me to pat for something that may not
physically benefit my property for
years?
THE same law provides that the dam
ages found shall be promptly paid out
the actual work be done and paid for
out of the general fund before trying
to collect from owners:
Calls Practice Absurd.
Ihis specific assessing of benefits
against abutting properties for work
done at the request of owners in the
block is the only form of benefit as
sessment that should be tolerated and
that only after completion of work
The common practice of assessing
benefits TO cover cost of public inn
provements, opening of thoroughfares.
etc, is unjust, unequal and in MANY
cases absurd.
Let me cite case in point: For the
benefit of the whole public it was de-
creed a wise thing to build bridge
across Rock creek at 9 street. Legis-
lation was enacted appropriating funds
out of the general treasury (half to
he charged to the District) to build
this bridge as a public necessity, but
when the bridge reached the west bank
of Rock creek and found no open
street the public necessity ceased, and
it was thought wise and just to con-
denim the land necessary and make the
private property owners pay for it in
shape of assessed benefits.
"a conscientious jury discovered that
abutting land would not only be con-
fiscated fin TOTO but the owners would
have to go down in their pockets hence
they scattered the so-called benefits all
over that section of Georgetown is
it not a ridiculous proposition to ask 4
few score of local citizens of the Dis
trict to bear the expense of completing
large public Improvement, bulit Tor
the public at large, and so acknoWl-
edged?A
Lamont Street Extension
AGAIN, IN Lamont street, WHICH
abruptly ended at 18th street (because
of the physical formation of the
sround). the owners of the block be-
tween 18th and 18th streets, fearing
that the building up of 10Th street
would shut out their view of Rock
Creek valley, developed sufficient infiu-
ence to get a bill through Congress to
condemn strip of land of the width
of their street through to Adams Mill
road. calling it Lamont street (yet for
street purposes it can never be used,
owing to the topography of the land)
The bill provided that benefits should
be assessed against property on 18th
street for two blocks. in order to pay
for this vista provided for the Lamont
street residents. l maintain that no
benefit can exist or be created that does
not give an actual. bona flde increase
to the value of the property affected,
and when that occurs it automatically
increases the taxable value of the prop
erty and thus specifically reimburses
the public treasury in increased taxes
for any benefit accruing to the individ-
ual. Public Improvement should be paid
for out of the general funds, even when
individual benefit is apparent