Evening star., 1927-05-13
Borland Law Inequities.

OU1 1GAn0 Law
Nearly fourteen years ago Congress
enacted law which imposed upon
the property owners of the District
fifty per cent of the cost of street i'm
provements, the remaining fifty per
cent to be borne by the general funds
of the District and the Federal con-
tribution to Capital maintenance.
This enactment, known as the Bor-
land law, as amended by subsequent
legislation, has always been regarded
as an inequitable imposition. Efforts
to secure its repeal have failed, al
though it was founded upon the prin-
ciple of double taxation, inasmuch as
the property owners mulcted in direct
assessments were also compelled to
pay their shares of the general taxes
contributing to the cost of street i'm
provement and maintenance.
Several years ago suit was brought
against the District praying for the
cancellation of an assessment under
the Borland law for the Improvement
of Rhode Island avenue northeast, in
the name of the owners of large
tract affected, on the ground that this
assessment was in effect conf1scatory,
owing to the nature and shape Of the
property involved. The District SUI
preme Court denied this suit, which
was then appealed, and more than
three years after the levying of the
assessment the appellate court re-
versed the judgment of the court be-
low, holding the assessment invalid.
Other property owners in the same
category have now filed suits to Sc
cure recovery Of assessments. The
statute of limitations, however, runs
against the later proceedings, the as.
sessments having been made more
than three years prior to the filing of
the suits. The District may under
the law plead that statute in bar of
proceedings, and If made such a plea
win be effective to bar the suits.
Legal representatives of the District
government, however, are now con-
sidering whether in equity the Dis
trict should enter such a plea or
should allow the cases to be tried on
their merits.
The history of the Borland law is
such as to warrant the fullest exten-
sion of equity to the property owners,
and the statute of limitations should
not be interposed to prevent restitu-
ton Of assessments which the Court
Of Appeals has in principle declared
to be confscatory and therefore sub
ject to refund. A technicality should
not obstruct justice.
The law itself is based upon wrong
principle of taxation. = In practice it
works out to the point of imposing
altogether disproportionate burdens on
property owners. In one OF the par
ticular cases now pending, which
may be blocked by the statute of
limitations If pleaded, the property in
volved is triangle with a compare
lively long street frontage but of shall
low depth at the widest end and run
ming to a point. The assessment is
levied on the front-foot basis, regard
less Of the area or the extent Of bene-
fit, il benefit can be conceived, to the
property owners from the improve
ment of the street.
Such inequities are inevitable IL the
Borland law is carried out in fun
terms. They will constantly arise, be-
cause the principle upon which the
street-improvement cost is assessed
by that statute is fundamentally
wrong. It is of moment in these pend
ing cases not only to the property
owners that the fullest opportunity be
given to recover. but to all owners of
! property in the District, who may at
any time be subjected to heavy and
burdensome assessments for street
improvements.
The short cut to justice in this case
il to repeal the law and to re-establish
the right principle Of street improve
! ment, namely, payment for such work
: out of the general finds without re-
gard to the ownership of properties
Immediately adjacent. Until that is
done gross inequities will continue.