Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-01-09
What Is a "Beneft"2

what is the benefit to a property
owner when a street in front of his
nome is improved by paving and en-
bellished with cutters and curbs?
Any one who could answer the cues
ton could defend the indefensible Bor-
land law. But can any one answer the
question? Probably no. because there
are many factors other than size and
shape Of the property that must be
considered, and any answer is condi-
toned on circumstances.
Take the case Of a property owner
who has invested heavily in a lot and
home facing On an adequately paved
nacadam street. The street is rela-
lively quiet, excellently suited to his
own needs and those Of his neighbors,
and for years he has been paying taxes
which went into the general fund for
street improvement. Along come some
traf1ic experts and highway engineers
who are looking for a shorter or more
direct route for automobiles. The street
Is paved cutters and curbing are added
and the ahutting property owners are
assessed one-half the cost of the lob
provided the street is no wider than
forty feet. Almost Immediately condi-
lions in the neighborhood change. The
erstwhile quiet street becomes a much
Travelled highway. The noise of auto
mobiles and trucks, the stencil of gaso-
line and burned oil and the menace of
the traffic to his children represent very
tangible handicaps to peace and COM
Tort, but under the Borland law they
are translated into a direct property
benefit.
The citizen gives up in disgust, sells
his home and moves to newly opened
subdivision. A roadway has been dedi.
Gated and opened in front of his prop
erty, but it remains unpaved. In Win
ter the mud sucks his automobile wheels
TO the hub or freezes and breaks the
automobile springs. In Summer the
roadway is inches deep in dust, which
likewise covers everything in the vicin-
ity. When the Highway Department
appears with men and machines and
paves the roadway he is a thankful
citizen, indeed, and cheerfuHy pays an
assessment which to him represents a
tangible benefit to his property.
In the meantime he has invested his
savings in a lot on a quiet subur-
ban road, awaiting future development
for residences. Nearby there is located
a Government airport. There is much
traf1ic to and from the airport So the
roadway is paved and widened. Under
the proposed new Borland act the prop
erty owner could be assessed 20 per
cent Of the value Of his tot-one-f fifth
OF his savings-to help pay for the
paving OF the roadway, though the
roadway is being built to give greater
access to the airport and not to benefit
his property. As in the first instance.
cited above, the value Of the lot for
residential purposes stands to suffer
rather than gain by the so-called i'm
provement.
There are cases in this city where.
under the old BorIand law. the 'front.'
foot assessment for benefits" might
equal or exceed the value of the lot.
Yet the benefit is for the community
at large and not the property owner
who must foot such an exorbitant pro-
portion Of the bill.
The District has been trying TO
widen and pave Benning road for years.
Condemnation juries have assessed
property benefits, not under the Bor-
land statute, but under another law.
It might be considered fair TO leave the
value of the property benefit in the
hands Of jury. But the Benning road
case has become historic, so many have
been the protests and so prolonged has
been the litigation brought by protest
ing citizens who refuse TO interpret the
highway improvement as benefiting
them. The Conduit road widening and
improvement project promises TO be-
come as well known. If not more So
Already involved as ro.estants are
about 1000 property owners, represented
by some 400 attorneys, who will con-
test the assessments.
When assessment for benefits by
turies Of citizens brings such contro-
versy over the value Of the benefit, how
can the District expect to make head
way with a measure such as the re-
vamped Borland law, which arbitrarily
assesses for benefits according to the
front foot, with certain limitations in
serted 10 get around judicial objection
to VIGOROUSLY discriminatory features?
Why waste more time with method
that is basically discriminatory and
arbitrary whether or not specific cases
OF discrimination may have been re-
moved?
What provision has been made for
reassessing the property, assessments
on which, under the old Borland law,
have been yoided by the courts? And
if such property is not reassessed under
the proposed new Borland law, is not
the new law in itself a discrimination
against property owners who will be
forced TO pay new assessments?
The "five-year" plan is beginning TO