Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-01-21
Change the Principle!

Opposition 10 the new Borland law
is based primarily on its continuation
of the principle Of blanket and arbi-
trary assessment Of abutting property
owners for benefits that are determined
by the cost of the improvement, this
principle being expressed in the first
section of the new bill, as follows:
THAT, hereafter, whenever under ap-
preparations made by Congress, the
roadway of any street, avenue or road
in the District is paved or repaved {. . =.
one-hah Of the total cost thereof shall
be charged against and become lien
upon the abutting property, and assess
ments therefor shall be levied pro rata
according to the linear frontage of said
property on the street, avenue or road,
or portion thereof, upon the roadway
Of which said new pavement or repay
ing is laid"
The remainder Of the bill is generally
concerned with exceptions under this
rule. One section, for instance, sets q
maximum front-foot assessment, in
recognition Of the fact that to levy one
half the cost Of some paving jobs
against the AUDITING property owners
would be palpably unfair, as some
streets are paved with extraordinarily
heavy concrete, demanded In the case
Of heavily travelled trafnc arteries. If
assessments in such cases were deter
mined by the cost Of the job, they
would obviously exceed the benefits to
the adjoining property owners. Another
section Of the bill provides that ag-
grieved property owners may protest
their assessments, and the Commits
sioners, taking such protests under adj
visement. may rebate, adjust or reduce"
such assessments In accordance with
their findings. There are other sections
Of the bill concerned with correcting
other inequalities anticipated when the
first section Is applied.
Thus the bill as . whole contains
contradictions that In themselves are
apt to cause asSmuch confusion and
uncertainty as those caused by the hard
knocks dealt the old bill by the courts.
Why not eliminate the root Of this
uncertainty and opposition to the Bor-
land principle by eliminating the f1rst
section Of the bill, and revising the
whole legislation In manner that viii
recognize that In some cases undoubted
and extraordinary benefits accrue to
abutting property owners by the paving
or repaving of streets, but leaving the
determination Of what and where these
benefits are TO some appropriate agency
The Court Of Appeals, in the so-called
johnson case, said that Our attention
has not been called to a case where q
general repaving act providing for an
arbitrary assessment Of the expenses or
q portion thereof against the abutting
property, regardless Of resulting BENEFITS,
has been upheld" and there must al
ways be approximate accord between
the assessment and the benefits actually
derived by the property owners from
the improvement. These questions are al
ways open In cases relating to the
repaving or repair Of streets, where the
local authorities act under statute
comforting general discretionary power"
The benefits from street paving and
improvement should be construed, espe-
cially under modern conditions, a.
accruing to the community as q whole,
which means the Federal City, and the
expenses met from general taxation.
The exceptions to this rule should be
those wherein the abutting property
owners, by reason of circumstance de-
termined in each case, receive a direct
/ benefit, for which special assessments
could equitably be levied without max
ing them arbitrarily proportionate to
the cost OF the improvement.