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

THE ROAD IMPROVEMENT DECISION.
Judge Stuart s decision in the road improve
ment case upholds the principle of the Local
assessment plan, and in an unofficial statencn;
/ Ile emphasizes the inherent propriety OF this
k|nlan; and yet his decision is likely 10 be a de
IIerrent 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 S gen
oral fund, whereas under the law of the last
h legislature, original construction mnst be done
+ under the local Improvement statutes, that is,
\ partly or wholly at the expense of abutting
/ property.
The feeling of the citizens who brought tie
<nit for injunction was that in these three
pieces Of road-work the improvement had gone
FAC beyond repairs and had become original
1onstructien. They felt that the local improve
|ent statutes shpnld have become operative as
IL these stretches Of highway Regardless Of
BE outcome of the eases in the lower court,
hey stiIl feel so.
The feeling that the city is doing material
ood construction out of the general fund, up
held by the courts opinion, will deter neigh
|orhoods from forming local Improvement dis
||icts Such neighborhoods will see work done
'sewhere on a scale that appears to be original
Instruction, and yet under the courts opinion
held to be repair work and it would be beyond
ITnan nature to expect these neighborhoods
ben to ask that they themselves be assessed
|.1dcr the frontage-tax statutes for the i'm
movement of their own streets.
To put it briefly and concretely, Manoa resi-
onfs will take this position: If the court
holds that such work as that on Queen street
|ns legally done as repair work and paid for
0t|of the general fund, Manoa is entitled to
be same sort of repair work . and there is 10
necessity of paying for it under the frontage
Ix plan.
And this decision means, if it means anything,
hat the city should undertake at once vast
thcnle of repair work on road after road and
|ehway after highway, for certainly they need
nprovement.
Judge Stuart's opinion in closing says:
Necessarily much must be left to the discretion
~ the municipal authorities dozen more men
we'll acquainted with the matter in hand pass upon
the question and adjudicate it they think it should
Be adjudcated. Now 1t seems me that it would
lf quite presumptons on tie part Of the court to
undertake 10 overdue TlSntIu eAeTclse Oi
ffority simply because he honestly differed with
hem in opinion and do not find anything in the
law that justfes such an action the part of the
court = think the injunction should be denied,
even thought that the city authorities were mis-
taken their conclusion the necessities OF the
cise or the proper mode of proceeding SO long as
hey exercise the discretion that is given them by
the law
The first court Interpretation of the local i'm
1rovement statutes thus places in the discre
Ion of the board the application or non-appli- |
.hfion of the statutes virtually without limita
Hon. But since the case is to be appealed to the
.npreme court a further discussion of it there
max serve to guide the taxpayers of the city, /
Hho are now wholly at sea. Certainly tax
bavers will be dissatisfied with laws which give
rs the supervisors and city engineer such APP
|barently imitless authority in determining
whether improvements are to be done under
he general fund or assessed against abutting
property.