Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-05-20
Benefit" Assessments.

After planning the step Tor fourteen
years the District government IS pre-
pairing to widen Benning road north
east from Fifteenth and H streets to
Oklahoma avenue, condemning some
land to increase the width of the thor
oughfare from forty-flve to one hun
drcd and ten feet and levying benefit
assessments 0gainst other parcels to pay
in part for tlc condemnation.
The road. overtaxed by heavy traffic,
should be widsn7d. In addition, the
project is in accordance with the high
way plan OF the District.
Rut the so-called benefit assessments
have resulted in storm Of protests
from property owners in the wide area
that is affected. They will take the
mater into court. and while the prin-
cirle of the law is against them, the
merits in the case are vet to be argued.
Public sentiment undoubtedly will sup
port the property owners. The lag
should be changed.
These are facts in the case:
The property to be condemned for
the widening has been valued by & con-
domination jury at $196,142.
Benefit assessments, or assessments
levied against property owners in large
area contiguous to Benning road for the
alleged benefits accruing to these prop
erty owners from the widening of Ben
ming road. will produce $113.243.
The balance of $4,000 will be paid
out of general revenue of the District
and appropriations for that purpose
may be asked in the 1881 estimates.
The weakness of the law, in these
modern days. is the assumption that
any real benefits are going to accrue to
the owners of property in an arbitrarily
fixed assessment area, simply because
the STRENGTHENING project will increase
the use of the street as traffic artery
which is the case on Benning road. In
letters to The Star, written by property
owners against whom special assess
ments have been levied, the fact is de-
veloped that some of the property is
as much as six blocks away from Ben
ming road. One case mentioned is the
Resurrection Chapel, which must pay a
special assessment Of ss3.42 for widening
Benning road a block distant.
How can it reasonably be argued that
these property owners are to reap any
more benefit from the widening of
Benning road than property owners in
the downtown area, for instance, who
might be merchants shipping or receiv-
ing produce over this road? Why is
the property owner, two or more blocks
away from Benning road, whose prop
erty lies on an unpayed street and who
does not own an automobile, to be
assessed special costs for street. widen
ing project that has as its general pur-
pose the better accommodation Of
through traffc?
On the other hand, is there not
strength in the argument that an owner
OF residence along q trafic artery is
actually damaged by a project to send
more trafic along that artery? The
noise. the smoke and the elimination of
the street from all considerations except
those demanded by trafic undoubtedly
lessen the value of the property for
residence purposes, loss that may or
may not be onset later by increase in
commercial value. AS Benning road is
by no means an important residential
street, the argument may not directly
apply. But the principle remains.
The Benning road case will be watched
with interest. If the property owners
lose, attention should be directed to
undermining an Anticipated law. If they
win. the District government should in
some manner be enabled to proceed to
the completion of a necessary project
without calling on a group of disinter-
ested property owners to bear the major
part of the cost.