The New York herald., 1920-12-05

Answers to last weeks question:
should sewers be paid by local assess
ment or by an issue of long term bonds
chargeable against the whole city?"
REAL ESTATE EDITOR, THE NEW YORK
IIERAIp-Sir: In my opinion. sewers or
any other similar local Improvement
should be paid for by assessment. To
make them general charge against the
city by any other method would be sim
ply robbing Peter to pay Paul. The
budget of the city of New York is big
enough now without burdening 1t still
more. 1t is time enough. as n rule, To
initiate local improvements when the
property owners Immediately interested
are willing to pay the cost. To have II
any other way would mean general
scramble of land spectators. big and
small, as well as OF individual owners,
for sewer construction and adding un-
duly to the expense OF the city.
1t is enough relief for property owners
to be permitted to pay assessments as
they are now, under certain 'circum-
stances, in instalments. At present
many thousands of dollars are added to
the budget every year by the cancella-
tlon of taxes, assessments and water
rents against churches and other corpor-
ations referred to N Section 221a OF the
charter PROPERTY Poor ALSO.
REAL ESTATE EDITOR, THE NEW YORK
HERALp-Sr: | should say that the fair
est means of levying the cost for i'm
provements of this character Is by local
assessment. To levy the cost on the
whole city would be decidedly unfair to
those who have already paid for their
sewers by local assessment. Another OBJ
lection against levying tho cost on the
whole city is that In some localities prop
erty Is sold at a low price because OF the
great difficulty in making sewer improve
ments. Under the proposed plan pur-
chasers in these localities would have a
double advantage over the owners In
sections where Improvement Is less diff
cult. CARL DoNoHUE.
REAL ESTATE EDITOR, THE NEW YORK
HERALD-Si1-: Property Poor" inquiries
whether assessments should be assessed
as a general or a local charge. No one
person who receives beneflt should sad
die this gain upon the shoulders OF an
other. Municipality should no differ
from a private citizen In warrant of law.
in having to establish by burden OF proof
that gain ensues for which any levy Is
made. The question may be facetiously
compared with the old adage that there
Is always one place where man can
uncomplainingly start a boil--on his
neighbor's neck. FAIR PLAY.
REAL ESTATE EDITOR, THE NEW YORK
HERALD--Str: AS L have had 70 pay for
sewers on property in my family In the
past. l don't see why owners whose prop
erty is ever on the Increase In value
should be relieved OF paying for their
own sewers w. T. PARKINSON.
REAL ESTATE EDITOR, THE NEW YORK
HERALp--Sir. The suggestion contained
in your question OF last Sunday, that the
cost for local improvements be levied
through an issue of long term bonds,
would, in my opinion. lend support to a
single tax argument. which is otherwise
unsound At the present time IL is no
more true that population Is solely re-
sponsible for land values than that it In
solely responsible for the value of any
other commodity. Labor or other eco
nonic elements arc always necessary TO
make land or other commodities useful
to populations. In the case OF land,
such elements are introduced In the form
Of sewers. paved streets and other local
improvements. properly paid for by the
local property owners.
III the popula tion of the whole COM
munity, i'm whom. undoubtedly, is the
source of all value, be required TO pay
for those improvements which make
private land useful, then II could reason
ably be said that the landlord Ia merely
q parasite, drawing undeservsd susten-