Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1927-02-03
Partial Justice Granted.


Passage by the Senate last night,
after objection had been made to It's
consideration and later withdrawn, of
House Bin il174 insures an enactment
of partial justice. 1t provides that
hereafter no frontage of AUDITING
property on which a legal assessment
for paving or repaving has been
levied and paid shall be liable to any
further assessment on account of the
replacement of such pavement.
This is an amendment to the SO
called Borland law, enacted September
1, 1916, which imposes upon the
owners of property fifty per cent of
the cost of all paving work on streets
of the District Of Columbia, the re-
naming fifty per cent being divided
between the District and the Federal
original act has been steadfastly main
tanned by the people of Washington
and repeated efforts have been made
to secure its repeal. Under it grave
owners. They have been compelled
to bear half the cost of new street
pavements and of requirements,
despite the fact that the streets are
for the benefit of the entire COM
munity and not their own exclusively
or primarily. Streets that have been
paved under the Borland law have
worn out under the increasingly
heavy traffic and in later years the
owners Of adjacent property have been
compelled to bear half of the cost of
resurfacing. In some instances these
assessments have been ruinously
burdensome upon the property owners
This present bill, which is now to be
lad before the President for signature
relieves them of at least the unjust
charge of replacement costs.
In the discussion of the bin last
night the question was asked whether
if there was good reason for the pas
sage of the original act, Congress was
now justified in repeating it in part.
In answer the Senator in charge of
the bill said:
l will say that / was not a mem
Der of the Senate when that act was
passed and became a law, but during
the eight years that / have been
here l have heard nothing but criti-
cism of the method. 1t has been
pointed out repeatedly that this is the
only city of its size where the cost
in which it is charged in the District
of Columbia. It is not the common
practice at all. 1t is the exceptional
thing. 1t may have been that it be-
came a law at the time when the city
was in desperate straits for finances,
as we know that some years ago the
Federal Government was compelled
to take over control in order to
straighten out matters and pay off
the indebtedness which had accrued,
This is in part a correct statement
of the situation. The Borland law is
an exceptional, unusual method of
paying for street paving. But it was
not adopted for the reason suggested
by the Senator as the possible
cause. 1t was the result of an
effort to impose upon the District
taxpayer larger share of the burden
of capital maintenance than equity
and long-continued practice had pre-
scribed. IT was an ill-considered, un-
just imposition upon the individual
taxpayer, for which there was no justi-
fication in the financial condition of
the District which was not in straitR
lit was not in any manner the conse.
quence of necessity that the Fed
eral Government take over control
in order to straighten out matters
and pay off Indebtedness which had
accrued" 1t was simply one of a
series of attacks made upon the prin-
ciples Of the organic act of 1873, es.
tablishing a form of government for
the District of Columbia and a
method of maintaining the municipal
administration.
Full justice demands that this par
tial repeal of the Borland law be fol-
lowed by full repeal, putting the cost
of street paving upon the general
funds and not in any part upon as
sessments on adjacent property.