Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-04-05
Another Borland Law Setback.

There is the old story of the inebri-
ated gentleman who thrice was thrown
downstairs and kicked into the street
after repeated attempts to honor those
within the establish rent with his pres
ence. Ruefully picking himself up and
limping away, he told the world fatty
and without equivocation: "You can't
fool me. They don't want me in there!"
That story is somehow suggested by the
fate of the old Borland law In the
courts, the underlying principle of
which law has been carried forward in
, q much-amended substitute enacted by
the last Congress. Some day, one is
constrained to believe, there will be a
solemn conclave of authorities at the
District Building from which will issue
the declaration You can't fool us.
There's something wrong with that
thing"
The District Supreme Court has ruled
against the municipality in another case
involving the enforcement of the old
Borland law. The municipality has lost
in attempts to enforce this law so many
times in recent court decisions that one
would naturally have concluded that the
final test long since had bsen made.
The latest decision, however, involved
the assessment for benefits" against
the owners Of row houses on lots of ap-
proximately equal size. Here there were
concerned no triangular lots, lots at
street intersections. lots of varying
dimensions, which brought up the ques-
ton of discrimination. The court en-
phasized. in its opinion, the weaknesses
OF the front-foot method of assessing
for so-called benefits" which accrue to
the owners of property from street i'm
provements.
THE front-foot method of assessing
the costs Of local improvements, said
the court, els at best a rough-and-
ready means of aScertaining the benefits
to the adjoining property. In this case
the highways improved are used to a
large extent by heavy trucks as a means
Of avoiding q heavy grade on Rhode
Island avenue. OF course, there are
some benefits to the lot owners, but To
require them to pay the entire cost
would be to that extent conf1scatory."
The municipality plans to appeal from
this decision, In the face Of four de-
feats at the hands Of the Court OF
Appeals, which more than once has
condemned the front-foot principle OF
arbitrarily assessing for benefits. The
municipality apparently has no recourse
but must fight it out to the bitter end
But does not this decision once again
emphasize the duty that faces the Com
miSsioners Of seeking some substitute
for the Borland principle, that viii not
merely give that obnoxious principle a
fresh coating Of sugar in the vain hope
OF having taxpayers sweetly swallow it?
There may have been the legitimate ex-
cuSe that rests in any emergency for
the extraordinary efforts made by the
Commissioners at the last session OF
Congress to have the amended Borland
amendment enacted. The session was
short, the parliamentary situation was
tangled, the Commissioners needed the
money for street repair work.
But, with more leisure at their dis
poSal, is it not extremely worth while
to spend at least as much time in seek
ing to persuade Congress to remove the
tnequitable principles of arbitrary front
foot assessment for benefits" as was
spent in pushing through the Borland
substitute at the last session? If an
effort TO have Congress remove the in
equitable Borland principle, even as
amended, is futile. Is it net better tc
have the responsibility for continuing
the life Of an inequitable principle
placed squarely on Congress?
The Commissioners are the only con-
stituted representatives of this com.
munity, and as such their responsibility
does not end with merely executing the
will Of Congress. There is something
in making a good fight in behalf of tbs
community.