The Waterbury Democrat., 1943-06-16

sonable relation to the expens OF
installation, opration, maintenance
and supervision Of the meter sys-
TEN, or whether the revenue is so
clearly in excess of the cost that it
must be construed as an unauthor-
lied taxing measure. A short state
ment Of the rule is that The Or
dinance must stand If a regulation
and fall If a tax" Hendricks V.
Minneapolis, POT MINI. Isl, 154. 200
N. w. 428. A more comprehensive
rule Is stated in Opinion of the JUS
tees, supra, SOS: Requirement of
payments from those parking auto
mobiles to meet he cost of the in
stallation, operation and mainten-
ance of the (meter) system and is
general supervision would be per-
missible." Gilsey Buildings, Inc. V.
Incorporated Village of Great Neck
Plaza, supra, is to the same effect.
In the present case the court
concluded that the primary reason
for the installation of the meters
was to regulate traffic but that the
city did derive a profit from their
use after all proper charges were
credited against the revenue. The
court did not conclude that the
profit was so large as to make the
meter system a revenue Or taxing
measure, and therefore invalid. One
paragraph of the finding states that
the income during the calendar year
194l exceeded the expense, another
that the city derived large profit"
and a third that the income for a
year and half was $35 ,84922, $26,-
514.40 was paid ION account of the
cost of the meters" and 1880 for
police supervision and other ex-
penses, but that the life of the
meters was five years and that in
accordance with accounting meas
only 20 per cent of $26,514.40, or
IS ,302.88 should be allowed. The
defendant attacked these findings,
and insists that there was consid-
cradle net loss and not large net
profit.
I'VE have carefully analysed the
evidence, and find that the net
profit, if any, was not large enough
to constitute the meter charge tax
instead of a charge for the reason
able expenses connected with the
regulation and restriction of traffic.
The court has found that the pri-
mary reason for the installation of
meters was the regulation of traf-
fic Furthermore, the measure, be-
ing regulatory is not invalidated be-
cause incidentally the city's receipts
of money are increased.
ut is implied in all of the deci-
sions we have cited in support of the
first general principle, and it is ex-
preSsly held in most of them, that
the installation and operation of
such parking meters and the eXac-
ton of a fee of the kind we have
described are not an unlawful viola
ton of the abutting owners prop
erty rights. See also Canastota
Knife Co. V, Newington Tramway
Co., SO Conn. 146, ISL, Sc Att 1107;
State V. Muolo, 119 Conn. 1923, 176
Att 401. In the latter case we said
(p. 32D: THE owner of the fee holds
his estate subject to the right of the
public to the full enjoyment of the
easement, under the changing con-
ditions of life, and subject to such
control as the Legislature may ex-
ercise under its police power" The
power to regulate the use of the
streets is a delegation of the police
power of the state government, and
whatever reasonably tends to make
regulation effective is proper exer-
Stevenson, supra, 1853.
1.-THE next question is whether the
defendant city had power or author
ity to install parking meters. 1t
claims that the board of police COM
missioncrs was authorized to install
the metcr system. This is based
on 5 1893 and 401 of the General
Statutes and TIC of the Cumula-
tive Supplement of 1885, which pro-
vide, in so far as they apply to the