OCR Text |
Show GOVERNOR KILLS THE HAMLIN TAXBILL : 7 Gov. "Wells has stamped with his disapproval dis-approval the amendment to the special tax law known as House bill 128. The bill was Introduced by Representative Hamlin and was Intended to amend section- 27S of the. Revised Statutes, already al-ready amended by chapter 131 ot the laws of 1S0L It related to assessments In cities for special improvements, such as street paving, sidewalk paving, sewers sew-ers and water mains. Under the present law two-thirds of the abutting property bwners can block improvements, but under Hamlin's law only majority of frontage owners would be required.'" ; In his message of veto, Gov. Wells said: I have the honor to Ale with you. without with-out my approval, but with a statement of my objections as required by law. House bill No. 128. "An act to amend sec-tloiVW sec-tloiVW of the Revised Statutes of Utah, ltfa, concerning notice of intention to ilv local assessments In cities, as amend-thy amend-thy cai"'' 121 o Law ot Utah, (Vblle one effect of the approval of this measure would bo to restore the provisos pro-visos of the Compiled Laws of 189 aa to the percentage of property ownership reauired to establish successful objection to proposed improvements, another effect woirabe to grant to City Councils the power to order certain Improvements without the possibility of any successful protest or objection whatsoever. The original orig-inal requirement, to which this bill would return, was, in substance, that objections filed by tho owners of one-half the abutting abut-ting property would constitute an estoppel to tho levy of & tax for the improvement fro posed. As amended by the laws of 1901, he percentage of objecting property ownership own-ership was increased to two-ihlrdsi In neither law. however, was it permitted to City Councils to order constructions, extensions ex-tensions or repairs of any Improvements for-which the property owners were to be taxed, without giving them any opportunity oppor-tunity for effective objection at ail. Tho entire sweeping away of this right of protest pro-test I regard as a serious objection to the proposed bill; even a minority is entitled to a hearing: On the other hand, while reluctant to approve tho Idea, generally speaking, of intrusting to a minority the power ' to compel the unwilling action of a majority, as the existing law permits In this matter, I apprehend that no argument is necessary neces-sary to show that so far as proper taxation taxa-tion la concerned, and perhaps in many other directions, the general welfare and tho necessities of the occasion aaust govern, gov-ern, especially where the representatives of the majority have decided that such necessity exists. No form of taxation Is popular with the majority," yet taxation for general purposes is recognised aa unavoidable. un-avoidable. It appears tome that equally strong reasons support a proper provision for special taxation, where the property to be taxed will receive the direct and tangible benefit, particularly in instances as above suggested, where the taxpayers' representatives have decided the levy to be advisable. There is no doubt that if section 273 or the Revised Laws of IS had not been amended by the laws of 1901 many splendid improvements recently made in some of our cities would have been prevented or long delayed: and it rity.befon?ldre luiUly probable that the approval of the present bill, which in restoring the former obviously repeals the a s'imfur- 3.Uberal h ,F.uItii?1?or- 1 th,nlt u "usceptible of Htin'ny ,0f. the objectors bve ,,dJuti,e future Presumably will be, those who have acquired property for speculative purposes, and are content to wf. foi. "oral Increase in value, '"J0"' ln to contribute, ex! cept by their patience, to the enhancer ment of those values. A bare maJorUv made up of such elements cm easily but effectually stand in the way of public lm- f X?1 " th? b9l hould prevail, and 1 do not conceive it to bo our duty to fat.peflaiv,e?l8Ult,on enaMe them ! to do so. in the face of successful exn!ri with, tho existing statute? Where I citv "couir .MVWfcrt the v-Jty cxuncii, and a maJorltv of tho nt 1 Th- r-X,"tin5 Pfovlslon for protest, pro-test, the rights and desires of those legitimately le-gitimately entitled to be heard aVoTuffl-"f aVoTuffl-"f Protected To permit iTweaker I protest to bo made effective would there- 1 fora appear to be not only a concession to ; npn-reeidents and speculators, but also a direct blow to tho progre&Mve spirit and Improvement of the age. For these rea-rova rea-rova caanot v 10 bU1 my ap- J |