Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1916-05-22
ONLY TWENTY-FIVE IN FOUR
DISTRICTS FILE OBJECTIONS
TO IMPROVEMENT.
ALL BUT SEVEN ON ~
SOUTH CENTER STREET
Meeting Develops Not All Of objee-
tons to Be Serious or Bona Fide--
Council Adjourns Hearing For Week
Only Ono ohjector to 10000 Fest
Sanitary Sewer Project.

! Objections to the proposed paving for
District No 8. Summit street; No. 4.
North Center street; No. 5, South Cen
! ter street: and No 6. North Third ave-
nue., to the city limits and to laying
10000 feet of sanitary sewer, were
heard by the city council this fore
noon. Twenty-Five objections were
filed to the paving. Only one objection
was made to the sewer project, the
cost of which will be assessed to the
! properties benefited.
| Because lawyers, who represented
! pra ctically all of the DIRECTORS, pleaded
that they would be in court next week.
the council continued the hearing on
j objections until next Monday forenoon
! The council meets "Wednesday fore
noon to let contracts for Districts Nos.
! | and ,, the Lincoln highway paving,
and two and one half miles of city
streets. 1t is probable that the Sani-
tary sewer project will come up at
that time and the clerk will be au-
thorized to advertise for bids for it.
Attack ConstitutionaIity OF Law.
The constitutionality Of the law and
the method of establishing the paving
! districts, alleged inequitable assess
rrents and benefits, are the main points
OF attack made in practically all OF
the objections. ]. NJ. Parker, T. F..
Bradford. and F. L. Meeker. represent
ing twenty-four DIRECTORS, filed a
blanket objection in printed form for
all their clients.
The law. which authorizes paving
projects of this kind, is attacked on
the ground of its unconstitutionality.
The allegation is made that the law
/ is unconstitutional because it exempts
moneys and credits from taxation that
| the city may levy against the whole
| city to pay any share of the cost the
city may assume.
| Another main objection made is that
! the boundaries of the paving districts
| have been arbitrarily established and
do not take in real estate benefited
that ought to be included.
/ Objection is also made that the as
sessnents have been arbitrarily fixed
/ and are excessive.
Cite Example Of Home.
An instance, which. however Is an
exemption, in support of the argument
/ that property benefited has not been
. included in districts. is cited in the
! case of the soldiers home. No pave
ment has been ordered along the home
grounds on the north side of Summit
street. The home grounds have there
! fore not been included in the district
The DIRECTORS claim is that the homes
drays will use the pavement laid on
! the south side of the street.
| That is true, but the city expects in
! another year to pave along the home
grounds side 1t is not included this
year because the city did not want
to take the chance Of paving it. then
having to pay for it if the state re-
! fused to pay. Undoubtedly the 1egisla-
! ture next winter will pass an appro-
f.; priation for the states share of this
pavement
Assessment Question of Fact.
! The burden Of the objections as a
whole. are that the assessments are
lnequitable and unjust. That question
is one of fact The council is required
to make such assessments as the bene-
fits and the value of the property seem
TO indicate. but the property owner is
not compelled to abide by such assess
nents. He has ample recourse to pro-
tect himself by appealing from the
Souli%ii SSSSSSlItSLt tIe ClStT1CS
court. There the question of the
amount of the assessment will be tried
out on facts as to the value of the
property assessed and the benefits de-
rived from the improvement.
Objections Not Bona Eide.
Considering the hundreds who VIII
be assessed for paving these fou,
streets to the city limits the DIRECTORS
were few in number. Before the coun-
Gil adjourned it developed that not all
the objections were made in earnes,
| or were bona ide.
/ J. NJ Stonestreet an objector to paw
Il ing South Center street. voluntarily
! told the council that he did not object
! to the pavement His, complaint was
that the engineers plats had assessed
against him for a. longer frontage than
/ ne owned. Such details. Will, o!
course. be corrected. - b..
\ John A. Sieg, an objector to tht
Summit street pavement, was not lon:
4! ago demanding that the street b.
i paved. To the T.-R. he complained
earnestly because the city. council did
|! not include Summit street with Dis
tricts Nos. and when they We're ur
1 List Of Objeetors.
4 npIy ope ohiecfiop Was filed II