Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1917-06-01
Mayor Keyes Explains the
Charter Amendments and
Discusses the Situation

As mayor, / feel that | should make
some statement relative to the charter
amendments proposed by the common
council of the city of Salem, designat-
ling the reasons which prompted that
body to submit said measures to the
people for their consideration.
l might preface my remarks by say
ing the merits Of these measures, al
though only submitted to the voters
last Monday night, have heretofore
been attacked through newspaper ar
tieles by certain attorneys, who all of
sudden have seen great virtue in a
measure which would bond the city for
all the street improvements heretofore
made and refund to the property own
ers, together with interest, the enorm-
GUS cost of those improvements. They
have also been attacked in the distant
twilight by some brother whose counte-
nance we cannot discern and whose
name we cannot translate, as he eau
tiously conceals his identity by signing
his articles under the ficticious name
of "Citizen. ] think it will be con-
ceded that these articles were prema-
ture in that they were written prior to
the time the proposed amendments were
leven passed upon by the council, and
in that they contained many gross mis-
representatives as to what the proposed
measures were to contain.
For instance, the chief thunder of
these writers (who from a standpoint
of convenience l shall dominate insur-
gents) seemed to be that said measures
would sweep away the right to remon-
strate against the Improvement of any
street and thus throw the property own
ers upon the fanciful whims of the
council ! will say that the amendments
contain no such provision and that such
an idea was never dreamed of by the
council but on the contrary, we are
reducing the right to demonstrate from
two thirds to q majority of the proper
ty affected by any proposed improve
ment to which ] will hereafter refer.
The Three Measures
These measures are three in number,
and will be balloted, upon separately at
the election and cover in substance the
following subject matter:
First: A measure empowering the
common council to reassess abutting
and adjacent property for its proper
tion of the costs of improving street
where no remonstrance has been filed
against the original improvement, but
where on account of some technical
error in the procedure some property
owner may evade his proportionate
share of such cost.
Second: The second measure pro
vides an equitable and lenient method
for collecting street assessment liens.
Third: The third measure reduces
the amount Of property required to
kill the Improvement OF any street by
remonstrance from two thirds to ma
jority of the property affected by such
improvement.
The merit of the first measure is
self apparent Every city that has en-
deavored to improve its streets without
the power to reassess has been beselg
ed with expensive litigation for there
are ever a few willy property owners
who will endeavor to worm from be-
meath their just proportion of such cost
upon some technical ground in the pro
cedure, and that regardless of the merit
of the improvement received and thus
shoulder their portion of the assess
ment upon those who have already paid
and upon the tax payer at large The
right to reassess has been upheld by
the supreme court of this state in cases
from Portland and Medford. Practic-
ally all cities have such provision IN
their charters and the city of Silver
ton, seeing the absolute necessity of
such charter provision, recently
amended its charter by adding the right
to reassess by vote of two to one.
Conditions are Chaotic
The finances Of Salem are in cha
otic condition. South High street and
South Twelfth street were paved some
two years ago, and the supreme court
recently held that the liens against
the property benefited by the improve
ment of those streets could not be col
lected. In one case the liens were de-
feated because notice required to oe
run for six days in daily newspaper
was run for six consecutive issues in
stead of seven consecutive issues, the
court holding that the first day should
be excluded and the last day included,
which would require the publication to
run seven times instead of six. In the
other case it was decided that the be-