Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1914-02-05
FROErAGE.fAX PRINCIPLES 80

Discussing the frontagetax principle for road
improvement, the Advertiser this morning saws {:
The Advertisers idea Of the distribution of cost
Tor road work done under the frontage system
is that the property directly benefited pay
100 per cent of the building city should
pay 100 per cent OF the of maintenance The
beauty OF such distribution Is its simplicity. There
Ii no room for any disagreement regarding proper
lionel benefits between the public at large and the
property owners and no necessity for any long
winded arguments about whether the should 81
come out Of the property frontage peck
ct or his general tax pocket, because the property
owner has to pay the bill anyhow, and the simpler
the arrangement the less the need for explanation.
The plan outlined above certainly has the
beauty of simplicity, but unfortunately it is sim
pie enough to be in opposition to law. A supreme
court decision, and a very proper decision, too,
stands IN the way of any such lump distribution
of the cost of road improvement. This decision
has already been referred to by the Star Bulle-
tin 1t was written by Chief Justice Robertson
IN case Involving the validity of the "rerolving
fund.- act of 1911. UNFOLDING that act, the su-
preme court said: r..
The duty to grade or pave such a highway may
not be imposed by law upon AUDITING owners and
although such owners may legally be compelled to
contribute to the cost Of grading and paving the
highway upon which their lands are situated. the
amount Of the enforced contribution laid in fern
OF special tax assessment cannot legally exceed
the value of the special benefits which to the
abutting property the result of the improvement
1t is Immediately Obvious that this decision is
squarely against the principle advocated by the
Advertiser The instances in which abuttingI
property benefits the full hundred per cent of
the cost of road improvement will probably be-
in the majority In most Instances, certainly
in the most important improvements, non.abut-
ting property and the entire city viii receive
some Of the benefits On the main arteries of
traffic, the main-traveled thoroughfares, the wa
terfront streets improvements will benefit the
entire city and the entire city should help pay
for them f~tSI AlJnlN
Nor can the building nd-maintenance lump
distribution plan be put into effect on only al
part of the communitys streets and roads al
principle must be adopted that will be equitable
no matter where it is operated.
Right here it might be well to point out that
il is in this very court decision and in the recog
nized principle of the frontagetax law, that
there is furnished protection to the property
owner. The chairman of the supervisors roads
committee, in an address to the Adj Club yester,
day, expressed the fear that if the frontage-tax
would lose their small holdings, being unable to
pay the frontage-tax assessed.
This fear is groundless, provided the supervi-
sors themselves do their duty If the tax is un-
justly high, it will inevitably be declared con-
fiscatory by the courts. The supervisors control
the improvement unless a substantial majority
Of the affected property-owners demand it. If al
majority demand it, the supervisors themselves
sit as board of equalization to determine the
respective amounts of the frontage.tax In ex-
pressing fear that the tax may fall too heavily
on some poor people Supervisor Petrie thus cx.
presses lack Of confidence in the ability of the
supervisors to handle the situation
What the progressive people of Honolulu ask
is not improvement against the wishes of prop.
erty-owners, but improvement in accordance
with the wishes of property-owners. If the prop
erty-oWners don't want to pay their just proper
ton of the expense, they needn't have the i'm
proyement.