Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1914-04-02
6 Mr.. WEAvER's APOLOGY.

Editor Honolulu Star-Builetin,
Sir:-It would be interesting il cor
rect, what Deputy County Attorney
Weaver says in defense of the board
of supervisors relative to the road
frontage tax. The delay in starting
anything under the acts in question.
however is not due TO lack of active
| interest on the part of the public. as
he suggests. From Immediately after
the approval of the frontage tax mea-
sures up to the present time various
| Improvement clubs, the central COM
mittee and other organizations have
been agitating for action en- the laws,
but at the same time awaiting a
statement of policy promised early
| in the game by the chairman of the
road committee of the supervisors.
Quite true it is that an initiative
| Is given to taxpayers to set the bali
| in motion for particular road OPEN
| ings or improvements. as we'll as the
same to the supervisors. Yet an mn
derstanding has been lacking from
the first, as to what, If any. division
of the cost of road work under either
act should be made between the city
and the owners of property benefited
Also, 1t has remained an open ques-
ton whether the districts should be
confined to frontages of the roads
desired 10 be opened or paved. as the
case might be, or spread over wider
areas of property supposed TO be bene.
fitted by the particular improvements.
This uncertainty regarding the details
of operation of the measures have an
illustration in the sole instance where
taxpayers have taken the Initiative,
Mr.. Weaver having given an opinion
to the effect that the petition was PIT
in accordance with the law ID its def
milton of district.
Now. the complaint against the sup
iervisors is twofold, and is not touched
by Mr.. Weaver's defense of them. In
the first place, the policy that
Chairman Petrie of the read commit
tee promised, at a public meeting OF
the board, about nine months ago, cal.
ed to confer with citizens interested
on the whole subject, has not been
Forthcoming. Not only that, but Il
has been publicly stated without con-
| tradiction that, at a recent meeting
of the board, the supervisors confess
ed to delegation from Kaimukt that
the matter was beyond them.
In the second place, the supervisors
went ahead, without regard to the will
IF the people expressed through the.
legislature, laying permanent pave
ment in the business section and build
ing roads in the outer sections. at the
sole expense Of the city and county
at large. It was clearly the Intention
lof the legislature that, after the pas.
sage of the laws in question, all road
work that came under the classified
ton of permanent should be perform
ed. in whole or in part, at the ex-
pense Of the property benefited There
was to be a revolution in road max
/ ing policy, as things had come to
such pass that the old system was.
universally acknowledged to be mad
eduate for making Honolulu modern
city with respect 70 roads. At the
same time. being revolutionary and
placing new direct burdens of taxation
upon property owners it was exceed
ingly desirable that the new system
should be inaugurated with great care
so as not to create such revulsion of
sentiment as would lead to its aban-
comment before it had fairly got under
way Hence the need OF suDeryisori-
II policy in. harmony with public opin-
ion.
Organizations and individuals agitat-
ing the enforcement of the laws have
all along stood ready to aid the su-
pervisors in formulating a policy that
would give the measures a chance of
success, but they have not been met
halfway by the Supervisors as should
have been expected On the contrary
some of the supervisors have stead
tasty opposed the taking of any action
upon the statutes. Mr Pacheco is re-
ported to have stated. at meeting of
an Improvement club. that personally
he was in favor of the frontage tax.
but as a representative. of the people
he was against it." A strange speech,
truly, for ene eIeeted,upon a platform
declaring fer the frontage tax
With regard to the still pending
question of division Of cost of work
already mentioned, it is not surprising
that the supervisors are not over
lwhelmed with petitions of taxpayers
to he assessed the entire cost of roads
desired, when it is considered that
the beard has done hundreds of thou
sands of dollars worth of work, much
Of it directly henefting the more
wealthy class Of taxpayers. since these
measures became law without, assess
ing cent upon the benefciaries. AS
Mr.. Church and others have shown.
the supervisors have had funds in