Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1916-03-31
CONNELLY CALLS HALT
ON TWINTVG'S SCHEME
TO TAX SUBURBANTTES
City Solicitor Advises Transit
Head That His Plan to FL
nance Transit Lines
Is Illegal
CITES COURT DECISIONS

City Solicitor Connolly, in an opinion
sent to Director Twining late yesterday
advised him that the proposal to tax out
lying sections is unconstitutional and inn
practical from legal standpoint. The
Transit Department is urged to drop the
idea.
The opinion of the City Solicitor fol-
lows:
"ReplyinE to your communication of
March 15. as to whether the city Of Phila-
delphia Is enabled to assess benefits upon
The property owners TO bear the burden
or portion of the burden Of the construc-
tion of additional transit facilities. three
distinct questions are raised First. Can
this be accomplished under the present
status OF the law? Second. Can this be
accomplished by legislation? Or third
would II require constitutional amend
ment?
First. There is no general statute
which authorizes the city of Philadelphia
or municipalities generally. to assess own
ers for local benefits conferred upon prop
erty. Those statutes comforting the right
to assess benefits upon the municipality do
not include contemplated improvements of
this kind.
Second. Since the decision of Hammett
VS. Philadelphia, 65 Penna. 146 GS70), 1t
Is well-settled principle of the law that
the Legislature may grant to municipali-
ties the power OF local taxation for local
local benefit must not merely be inciden-
tai to the contemplated Improvement; 1t
must be the primary object of it,
ut is further held by the courts that in
any event only the owners of directly
abutting property can be assessed. and
these are assessable for purely local bene-
fits alone. The practical difficulty en-
countered in attempting to apportion and
assess special tax on properties not abut
ting on the Improvement would be nearly
or quite insurmountable. Although
property in the vicinity might be bene-
fited, the imposition of such n tax would
not be feasible, even If permissible, and
for that, among other reasons, this could
not be done.
Third. 1t follows from decisions already
handed down and which might be multiplied
almost indefinitely, not only in this State
but elsewhere, that no act Of the Legislature
having In view the assessment of Dement'S
upon property for the construction of
transit facilities, or the assessment in
any other manner of all or n part of !
their cost upon individual property own
ers. would be sustained as constitutional. !
1t also follows that the only method in |
which this could be done would be by the |
slow process of constitutional amendment. |
As you are awre, an amendment to the |
Constitution requires to be proposed at
one session of the Legislature, acted upon
affirmatively. referred to "A second session,
the Legislature meeting biennially, again
acted upon favorably, and then submitted
to vote of the people This, together
with the time elapsing for the passing of
the necessary statutory legislation, would
compel an interval of four or five years
before such an amendment could become
effective. Added to this would be the great
difficulty, even after the amendment of
he Constitution. OF formulating an act of
Assembly which would enable proper
IiVtsfnn made hRtwRRn nj
he cost which should be borne by the
public and that part to be charged against
property owners, and dividing the latter
lmong such owners individually"