Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1915-08-07
Assessments for improvements

| paper read before the State Bar Asso-
citation. at White Sulphur Springs. Robert
=. Tunstall, of Norfolk has directed new at
tentlon TO reform much needed and fire.
quently advocated on this page-the repeal
that is, of the constitutional Inhibition, pecu-
liar to Virginia, Of the assessment against
abntting property owners OF any part Of the
cost of street improvements.
NO other State of the Union as Mr.. Tuns-
tall pointed out. now places this handicap on
municipal progress and betterment In other
States 1t is the almost nvariable practice to
pay for improved paving by the assessment
system, the usual course being to charge one
third of the cost to the property owner on
either side of the thoroughfare paved while
the city pays the remaining third.
II may be worth while TO consider, in the
light of recent calamity. that. had the as
sessment system of public improvements been
in operation in Richmond. Shockoe Greek
probably would have been transformed long
ago from nuisance TO broad avenue of
equal utility and beauty. Baltimore in a
similar case, but with adequate powers has
done this very thing. Jones Falls few
years ago was open and noisome sewer
running through the very center Of the CITY:
now IT is covered boulevard and one Of the
show places Of the community The work
was done within two years and while other
great public improvements were being made
including $40. 600. 900 sewerage system and
the smooth paving Of many miles of streets
IL is entirely obvious that property owners
receive direct benefit from modern paving.
and that. in simple Justice. they should bear
n part OF the cost. 1t is also obvious that
Richmond never will be paved until the con
sttutlonal bar is removed. for the natural
growth Of the city will more than keep pace
with any paving that wisely may be done
from bond issues or the general levy.
The usual objection, in practice to a change
from paving system whereby the whole
cost is placed on the city. TO SYSTEM of as
sessments, is that il works an injustice to
property owners the streets thereafter
paved. These citizens declare that other
citizens have had streets in front of their
homes and places OF business paved without
cost, their argument gaining additional
popular potency from the fact that il is usual
~ the principal business and residence
thoroughfares that have been paved under
the old plan. II becomes easy therefore 10
raise the old cry OF rich again poor and to
support it also with some rather respectable
arguments
Baltimore. under the leadership OF her
present Mayor. j. H. Preston. met and solved
this problem. MIR. Preston evolved a method
OF paying for street improvements by tax
rather than by assessments The tax is an
piled, over period Of years. TO every owner
OF property on every smoothly paved street
wheJher the paving was done before or after
the passage OF the tax law. Under this law
gross payments approximate what they would
be under what is known as the Buffalo plan
OF assessments
Some very excellent Baltimore LAWYERS said
ihe paving tax was unconstitutional. because
II was retroactive. but the Maryland Court OF
Appeals upheld its validity. In all OF lis
aspects the method may not be adapted In
the situation here, but. in case the consti,u-
'lonal inhibition against special taxes and
assessments is ever removed. it would be
worthy of close considerations