The Leavenworth echo. [volume] (Leavenworth, Wash.) 1904-current, 1914-04-24
To Settle VexatiOuS Question

Not so much because Of the amount
in controversy between the property
owners in improvement districts two
and four, within the corporate limits
of Leavenworth, and the contractors,
did the citizens affected determine to
contest in the courts the matter in dis
pute, but to settle for the future
whether the city council has the right
under the law to make Improvements
without the consent Of the property
owners, indeed, over their protest,
and 90 to the extent Of confiscating
the property to pay for the improve
ment. If the contractors are right in
their contention that the city council
has the right under the law to order
any improvement made they see fit,
and there is no limit to the amount
they may expend in making such i'm
provement, charging the same to the
adjoining property owners, then the
law should be amended.
The law of 1911, under which city
councils might order improvements
made, provided that on the petition OF
property owners the council was di-
rected to employ some competent per-
son to make an estimate OF the cost
of the proposed improvement to each
and every property owner affected, to
hold a public hearing, giving the
property owners an opportunity to OBJ
iect to the improvement, if they
deemed the cost more than they were
willing to bear. If, however, ma
iority of those within the proposed i'm
provement district favored the making
of the Improvement then the council
had the right to advertise for bids and
let contract, provided the bid did
not exceed the estimated cost. Under
this law the supreme court OF the state
decided in a case that originated in
North Yakima, and in another case
that went up from Chehalis, that I'M
der no circumstances could the prop
erty owners be charged in an amount
to exceed the estimated cost. The
sound reason for this is so obvious that
it is hardly worth while to refer to It.
Unless there is some limit to the
amount with which the property owner
NAV be charged there is room for rank
injustice and oppression. Under this
law, the contractor who did work in
excess of the estimated cost did it
at his peril, and the court held could
not collect from the property owners.
In 1911 new law, relating to the
duties and powers Of councils OF cities
of the third class was passed. This
law follows the old law in so far as ii
requires an estimate Of the cost OF pub
lie improvements to be made, and that
notice be given, and property owners
be required to come before the coun-
Gil and make objections. The new
law, counsel for the contractors hold,
gives the council right to disregard
the objection OF property owners, and
over their protest go on and order
the improvements made, and further
assert that under the law Of 1911 the
council may spend any amount they
see ft-double or treble the estimated
cost-may expend an amount equal to
the value OF all the property in the i'm
provement district and the property
owners must pay the cost or lose their
property. 1t is even asserted by some
that should the property, il sold at
sheriff's sale, fail TO pay the cost the
contractor may levy on any other prop
erty to satisfy the improvement debt.
|
m tba DroureSsives who are seeking