Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-01-20
Let It Die!

Additional amendments have been
sent up to the Capitol to be tackled on
to the patched Borland bill. One of
them would cancel all assessments made
during the past three years under the
old Borland law, invalidated by the
courts, and reassess the property hold
ers under the proposed substitute law
Another provides that if sections of the
law are declared unconstitutional by
the courts, the ruling will not affect
the legality of what remains of the law.
The attention of the members of
Congress is invited to the following
language of the court in invalidating
sections of the old Borland law John
son v. Rudolph ct al, 81 App. D. c.,
and it is suggested that the proposed
new law be read with these points in
mind:
But this assessment must fail upon a
still broaaer and more equitable ground.
The statute Is not local in terms, nor is
it here invoked to authorize a local
improvement affecting especially the
people adjacent to the avenue. but an
the District In general and to the Coun-
try beyond, in that the repaving of this
avenue resulted in the paving Of an
old established city street as part OF
boulevard scheme connecting Washing
ton and Baltimore. Our attention has
not been called to a case where a gen.
eral repaving act providing for an arbi-
trary assessment of the expenses or a
portion thereof against the abutting
property, regardless of resulting bene-
fits, has been upheld. 1t may we'll be
that conditions could exist so equitable
and fair that an assessment on the
front-foot plan might be sustained: but
to do so there must be a relative equal
ity in the value and depth Of the
abutting properly, and the assessments
must not exceed the benefits.
Cooley, in his work on Taxation
condemning the frontage rule when APP
piled to a public street improvement,
said: 1t considers each lot by itself, COM
polling each to bear the burden of the
improvement in front of it, without
reference to any contribution TO be
made to the improvement of any other
property, and it is consequently without
any apportionment. From accidental
circumstances the major part of the
cost of an important public work may
be expended in front of single lot;
those circumstances not a all con-
tributing to make the improvement
more valuable to the lot thus spscifi-
cally burdened. perhaps even having
the opposite consequences. But, what
ever might be the result in particular
cases, the fatal vice in the system is
that it provides for no taxing dis riots
whatever. 1t is as arbitrary in prin-
ciple, and would sometimes be as I'M
arI in q q FnOIIlofinn that
the town from which a State officer
CHANGED TO be chosen should pay his
salary. or that the locality in which the
standing army. or any portion of it,
should be stationed for the time being,
should be charged with it's support. If
one is legitimate taxation, the other
would be-
We are forced to the conclusion that
there is no theory on which the legal
ity of this assessment can be sustained.
II the paving of Rhode Island avenue
be treated as an original improvement,
converting-a highway into paved city
street, its consti utional infirmities are
emphasized by reason of the existence
of physical conditions forbidding any
equal, fair or equitable application of
the frontage rule of taxing benefits. II
considered as repair of the avenue, in
the form Of repaving it, its validity
must be condemned for the additional
considerations pointed out. bringing 1t
within the scope of a general city i'm
proyement.
The front-foot method Of assessment
for street improvement, under a gen.
eral statute is condemned specially on
the theory that 1t taxes the individual
property fronting on the improvement
for all or fixed portion of the eX-
pense. to the exemption of all other
property in the municipality. 1t is not
local improveme Mt beneficial to the
immediate properly affected but pub
lie improvement, the expense of which
should be borne by all the property OF
the community on an equal proportion
ate basis. To thus tax all or an unequal
portion OF the burden of the expense
OF general public improvement against
the property Of a single pc. son or a
group of persons. to the exemption of
the public generally, falls within the
constitutional inhibition forbidding the
taking of private property for public
use without just compensation.
II is compe .ent in cases OF
special ass ssments arising under a gen.
eral law to inquire not only into the
matter Of discrimination and Unequal
ity. but as to theapproXimate accord
between the assessment and the bene-
fits actually derived By the property
owners from the Improvement These
questions are always open in cases re-
lating TO the rcpaving or repair of
streets where the local authorities are
under a statute comforting general dis
cretionary power. The present law is
not a legislative a5iudca ion concern
ing a particular place and particular
plan. but it applies to streets, AVENUES
and roads generally throughout the Dis
trict; ii is a. general prospective law.
Therefore III testing the yalidi y of
this amendment we are not dealing with
an incid ntal benefit common to the
whole community or a legielatiyely de-
tcrmined method Of assessing benefits
in particular locality, but wi h gen.
eval law applied to unique situation,
owing to the peculiar manner in which
the avenues Of the City Of Warrington
are projected
II is aS@uredly not the purpose Of
Congress TO rush through a measure
which may result in further injustices
to the taxpayers of the District, against
which they must resort TO expensive and
time-wasting litigation to defend them
selves.
-S-@0S-S----