Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1914-02-05
fU0ETAGE.TLX PRINCIPLES


Discussing the frOntage-tax principle for road
improvement the Advertiser this morning SAYS :
The Advertisers idea of the distribution of
for road work done under the frontage tax system
that the property directly benefited should pay
100 per cent Of the bodybuilding the city should
pay 100 per cent Of the cost Of maintenance The
beauty OF such distribution is its simplicity. There
Is no room for any disagreement regarding proper
dona benefits between the public at large and the
property-owners and no. necessity for any long
winded arguments about whether the costs should
come out Of the property frontage tax 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 validitysof the srevolving
fund" act of 1911. UNFOLDING that act, the su-
preme court said: "a 81
The duty to grade or pave such a highway may
not be imposed by law upon abutting 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 form
OF special tax or assessment cannot legally exceed
the value of the special benefits which to
abutting property the result OF the improvement.
1t is Immediately Obvious that this decision is
sguarely against the principle advocated by the
Advertiser The instances in which AUDITING
property benefits the full hundred per cent of
the cost Of road improvement will probably be
in the minority In most instances, certainly
in the most Important Improvements, noli.abuts
ting property and the entire city will receive
some of the benefits On the main arteries of
traffic, the main-trayeled thoroughfares, the wa
terfront streets, improvements will benefit the
entire city and the entire city should help pay
for them =. =,
Nor can the building-and maintenance lump
distribution plan be put into effect on only. al
part of the community's streets and roads AL
principle must be adopted that will be equitable
no matter where it is operated ~NH II
Right here it might be well to point out that
it is in this very court decision, and in the recog
nized principle of the frontage.tax law, thatl
there is furnished protection to the property
owner. The chairman of the supervisors roads,
committee, in an address to the Ad Club yester-
day, expressed the fear that IL the frontagetaxI
00OS put lhtO pOOF peOplel
would lose their small holdings, being unable toll
pay the frontage-tax assessed. ,s".
This fear is groundless, provided the supervi-l
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 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 ex-
presses lack of confidence in the ability of the
supervisors to handle the situation
What the progressive peoplesof Honolulu ask
is not improvement against the wishes of prop.
erty-owners, but Improvement in accordance
with the wishes of propertyowners If the prop
erty-owners don't want to pay their just proper
ton of the expense, they needn't have the i'm,
provement.