Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1914-04-02
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 on 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 ii is that an initiative
! is given to taxpayers to set the ball
in motion for particular road open
; ings or improvements, as we'll as the
same to the supervisors. Yet an un-
] Outstanding has been lacking from
the first as to what, il 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 TO be opened or paved, as the
case might be, or spread over wider
areas of property supposed to be beno-
! 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 pot
in accordance with the law al its def.
milton OF district. s~ --.
| Now, the complaint against the sup
| ervisors is twofold, and is not touched
] by Mr.. Viewers defense Of them. In
| the first place. the policy" that
Chairman Petrie of the road commit
tee promised, at a public meeting Of
the board, about nine months ago. call.
ed to confer with citizens interested
on the whole subject, has not been
forthcoming. Not only that, but It
has been publicly stated without con-
tradiction that, at recent meeting
| of the board, the supervisors confess
ed to a delegation from Kaimukt that
the matter was beyond them"
| In the second place, the supervisors
went ahead, without regard TO the will
of the people expressed through the
Legislature, laying permanent pave
Iment in the business section and build
ling roads in the outer sections, at the
sole expense of the city. and county
/ at large, 1t was clearly khe intention
of 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 revolution in road max
ing policy, as things had come to
such pass that the old system was
universally acknowledged to be mad
equate for making Honolulu modern
city with respect TO 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 a revulsion of
sentiment as would lead to it's aban-
Comment before it had fairly got under
way. Hence the need Of supervisory
81 policy in harmony with public opin-
ion.
Organizations and individuals ag:tat-
ing the enforcement of the laws have
/ all along stood ready to aid the su-
pervisors in formulating policy that
would give the measures a chance Of
j, 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
lastly opposed the taking of any action
upon the statutes. Mr.. ,Pacheco is re-
uorted 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 one elected upon a platform
declaring for 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
whelmed with petitions of taxpayers
to be assessed the entire cost of roads
desired, when it is considered that
the board has done hundreds of thou
sands OF dollars worth of work, much
Of it directly benefting the more
wealthy class Of taxpayers, since these
measures became law without assess
ing l cent upon the beneficiaries. AS
Mr. Church and others have shown,
j the supervisors have had funds in