Evening star., 1933-09-10

roadways not exceeding 40 feet in width.
In cases of wider streets the paving Of
the extra width was to be borne by the
Government The law was amended In
1916 to provide a different system Of
measuring the 20 feet Of roadway paw
ing to be charged against property own
ers on either side.
A flood Of protests against inequities
growing out of the front-foot assess
ment plan developed after a first con-
test was taken to court in 1920 by
Vernon E. West, an attorney for one
property owners. who won decisions in
both the District Supreme Court and
the District Court of Appeals.
Particular points Of attack were as
sessments on properties of unequal and
unusual shape, or different depth, and
those having more than one street
frontage
There was another change in the law
in 1927 when Congress decided that
where one legal assessment had been
levied for paving or repaving. no fur
ther assessment should be made for
future requirements.
The ultimate result of the court at
tacks.' however. was the enactment Of
the new paving law OF 1881. While this
continued the plan for assessing half
the cost Of paving project against
owners Of abutting property, up to q
maximum width of 40 feet, 1t elm
mated some Of the old inequities.
Maximum Assessment Provided.
1t provided that the maximum linear
front-toot assessment should not exceed
$3.50 per linear foot, and that the total
cost levied should not exceed the num-
Der of square feet of area Of the prop
erty. multiplied by l per cent of the
linear frOnt-fOOt assessment, or should
not exceed 20 per cent of the value of
the property. exclusive of Improvements
thereon, as assessed for taxation at the
time
Also. land lying more than 100 feet
back Of the street was excluded from
assessment computations. The new law
also provided that where a property
fronts on two or more streets. the as
sessment for street paving should not
exceed 3.5 cents per square foot Of
area of the property. or 20 per cent of
the value Of the lasd as assessed for
taxation. Any legal assessment levied
or paid previously for paving or curb
ing also was to be taken into this COM
putation.
The new law also provided the COM
luLaSlOIlcIS Will dQIIlOi Ivy W dUdlc, IC-
duce or adjust any assessment If they
found that q property owner, who pro-
tests within so days after service of a
notice of assessment. is not benefited by
the improvement or is benefited less
than the amount Of the levy or IS un-
equally or inequitably assessed with re-
lation to other abutting property owners
Provision Seldom Employed.
This clause was big step from the
arbitrary provisions of the old Borland
law but it has not been employed fire.
quently Off1cials also point out that
it calls for the filing Of protests by
property owners within a specified
time. Some observers say this would
be done chiefly by the more well-to-do
owners rather than by the poorer
classes Of property owners most in need
of protection.
The engineer officials believe the law
should be changed to place more def
mite limit on the paving levieS so that
property owners would be charged only
local benefit and no more than
would be required for a paving that
would suit only local" traffic pur-
pose, even though the street may be
given a 10-inch concrete base to carry
the heaviest traffic.