Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1915-08-30
THE ROAD IMPROVEMENT DECISION.

466 6OA0 1mE1OV6m6N1 OGC1O1ON.
Judge Stuart's decision in the road improve
ment case upholds the principle of the loca
assessment plan, and in an unofficial statement
ne emphasizes the inherent propriety of this
plan; and yet his decision is likely to be de
ferrent instead of an encouragement to the
formation of local improvement districts
The circuit judge holds, in brief, that the
work under dispute in three cases was repair
work and not Original construction" Now
repair work may be done from the city Is gen
eral fund, whereas under the law of the last
Legislature, original construction must be done
under the local improvement statutes, that is
partly or wholly at the expense of AUDITING
property
The feeling of the citizens who brought tile
suit for injunction was that in these three
pieces of road-work the Improvement had gone
far beyond repairs and had become original
construction. They felt that the local improve
ment statutes should have become operative as
% these stretches Of highway. Regardless Of
the outcome Of the cases in the lower court,
they still feel so.
The feeling that the city is doing material
road construction out Of the general fund, up
held by the court' opinion, will deter neigh
borhoods from forming local improvement dis
tricts. Such neighborhoods will see work done
elsewhere on scale that appears to be original
construction, and yet under the court Is opinion
is held to be repair work and it would be beyond
human nature to expect these neighborhoods
then to ask that they themselves be assessed
under the frontage-tax statutes for the i'm
provement of their own streets.
To put 1t briefly and concretely, Manoa resi-
dents will take this position: IF the court
holds that such work as that on Queen street
was legally done as repair work and paid for
out Of the general fund, Manoa is entitled to
the same sort Of repair work and there is 10
necessity of paying for it under the frontage
tax plan
And this decision means, if it means anything,
that the city should undertake at once vast
scheme of repair work on road after road ind
highway after highway, for certainly they need
Improvement
Judge Stuart S opinion in closing says:
necessarily much must be left to the discretion
Of the municipal authorities dozen or more men
well acquainted with the matter In hand pass upon
the question and adjudicate 1t they think 1t should
be adjudicated. Now 1t seems to me that 1t would
undertake to overruie this rigRtfu exercise Of au.
thority simply because he honestly differed with
them In opinion and do not find anything in the
law that justines such action the part Of the
court think the injunction should be denied,
even II thought that the city authorities we're mis-
taken In their conclusion the necessities of the
case or the proper mode of proceeding. long as
they exercise the discretion that is given them by
the law"
The first court Interpretation of the local i'm
provement statutes thus places in the discre-
ton of the board the application or non-appli-
cation of the statutes virtually without limita-
ton But since the case is to be appealed to the
supreme court, further discussion of it there
may serve to guide the taxpayers of the city,
who 3re now wholly at sea- Certainly tax
payers will be dissatisfied with laws which give
to tie supervisors and city engineer such APP
parentIy limitless authority in determining
whether improvements are to be done under
the general fund or assessed against abutting
property.