City of Crowley v. Police Jury of Acadia Parish
| Decision Date | 26 April 1915 |
| Docket Number | 20626 |
| Citation | 70 So. 487,138 La. 488 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | CITY OF CROWLEY v. POLICE JURY OF ACADIA PARISH |
On Rehearing, December 13, 1915
(Syllabus by the Court.)
A municipality has authority to set apart and leave unpaved ornamental spaces in the center of a street that is wider than the traffic requires, and the governing authority does not thereby make the city liable as a property owner for one-half of the cost of paving the street on either side of such ornamental spaces, under a statute requiring the owners of the property abutting the paved street to pay the cost of the pavement according to the front-foot rule of apportionment.
The front-foot rule of apportionment for assessing a local tax for street pavement means this: The total cost of the work including the cost of grading, filling, culverts, headers gutters, curbing, engineering, labor, material, etc., is to be divided by the total number of square feet of paving done under the contract; and the quotient multiplied by one-half of the number of linear feet in the width of the pavement opposite the property lines, is the basis or rate of assessment of the property per front foot.
Harry W. Gueno, City Atty., of Crowley (Philip S. Pugh and Lawrence H. Pugh, both of Crowley, and James E. Zunts, of New Orleans, of counsel), for appellant.
C. B. De Bellevue, Dist. Atty., of Crowley (Smith & Carmouche, Medlenka & Bruner, and Chappuis & Holt, all of Crowley, of counsel), for appellee.
O'NIELL, J.
Having paved Parkerson avenue from Mill street to the north side of Court square, the plaintiff brought this suit to compel the parish to pay the proportion of the cost of the work assessed against Court square, which is surrounded by the paved avenue. The demand is for $ 7,857.51. The defendant's only objection to paying it is that the assessment is out of proportion and not according to the front-foot rule provided in the statute authorizing the work to be done at the cost of the adjacent property owners. The plaintiff has appealed from a judgment of nonsuit.
The ordinances providing for this street improvement were enacted in response to a petition signed by a majority of the taxpayers owning more than one-half in value of the property fronting on the improved portion of the avenue. The president of the police jury, authorized by a resolution of that body, signed the petition on behalf of the parish. The proceedings were conducted under authority of Act No. 131 of 1904, amending section 34 of Act No. 136 of 1898, authorizing municipalities to pave their streets and assess the cost to the owners of the abutting property, according to the front-foot rule of apportionment.
The defendant contends: (1) That the assessment is excessive and unfair to the property owners because the city has left unpaved spaces called neutral grounds in the center of the avenue, and that the city should therefore pay that proportion of the cost of the paving which the lineal measurement of both sides of these neutral spots bears to the lineal measurement of all property fronting or abutting the paved avenue; and (2) that in other respects, the system of assessment of this local tax, adopted by the municipality, is not one of equality and uniformity, and is not in accord with the statute authorizing it.
Parkerson avenue is the principal thoroughfare in the city of Crowley. It is 115 feet wide between property lines extending north from Mill street to and across the main line of railway of the Southern Pacific Company, thence continuing to and across Front, First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth streets, to the center of the south boundary of Court square, where, with a width of 57 1/2 feet, it surrounds the square, and, resuming its original width of 115 feet at the center of the north boundary of the square, it continues on to the northern limit of the city. Most of the traffic from the surrounding country comes into the city through Parkerson avenue.
When the city was laid out in 1887, small trees were planted in the center of Parkerson avenue; but there is no record nor written evidence of a dedication of neutral ground within the avenue, nor does the official map or plat of the city show such dedication. About 20 years ago, the municipal authorities had the trees cut down, and, from that time until this paving was done, there was no evidence of neutral grounds in this broad avenue.
As a matter of economy to the property owners, and to beautify the avenue, the municipal authorities have laid off and sodded and left unpaved spaces 35 feet wide in the center of Parkerson avenue, between the intersection of Front street and First Street, and of First and Second streets, and so on as far as the paved avenue retains its width of 115 feet. The sidewalks are 14 feet in width from the property line along the avenue, and the new pavement of the thoroughfare is 26 feet in width on each side of the grass plots between the intersecting streets from Front street to the point where the avenue branches off east and west and passes around Court square.
On account of the congestion of traffic around the Southern Pacific depot, the pavement from Front street to the south boundary of the railroad right of way extends the entire width of 87 feet between the sidewalks. And, on account of the manufacturing establishments on the avenue from the south boundary of the Southern Pacific right of way to Mill street, the sidewalk on the east side of the avenue is only 9 feet wide, the new pavement on that side is 34 feet wide, the grassgrown space is 29 feet wide, the new pavement on the west is 29 feet wide, and the sidewalk on that side is 14 feet wide. Thus this central avenue of the city has a uniform width of 115 feet between property lines, extending north and south from the center of Court square. The pavement on the four sides of Court square is 26 feet in width. The sidewalks adjoining the square are 21 1/2 feet wide, and those along the private property lines, opposite Court square, are 10 feet wide.
The petition signed by the property owners and by the president of the police jury, requesting the municipal authorities to pave Parkerson avenue, contained no restriction regarding the width of the space to be paved. The proposition was that, if the city would pave the avenue from Mill street to the north side of Court square and pay that proportion of the cost which the area of the intersections of the streets crossing the avenue bear to the total area paved, the property owners would pay the balance of the cost in proportion of the front measurement of their properties abutting the paved portion of the avenue, according to the provisions of Act No. 131 of 1904. It was not contemplated that the city should pay more of the cost than the proportion which the area of the intersections of the streets crossing the avenue would bear to the total area paved. Nor was there any protest against sodding and leaving unpaved these beauty spots in the center of the avenue. If the defendant's contention is correct, that these sodded spaces are to bear the same proportion of the tax that is borne by the private property abutting the paved avenue, the city will be compelled to pay, not only for the area of the intersections of the cross streets, but also one-half of the cost of paving the remaining area between these intersections.
In support of this contention, the defendant's counsel cite the decision of this court in the case of City of Shreveport v. Weiner, 134 La. 800, 64 So. 718. In that case, however, it was observed that the grass plots left unpaved in the center of the street did not form a part of the street; that they had been dedicated as neutral grounds, marked 'Esplanade' on the original plat of that subdivision of the city; and that, when one of the property owners requested that these neutral grounds be included in the street and paved, the street commissioner refused the request because he was of the opinion that it would be a diversion from the use for which these open spaces were dedicated to the public and would cause the title to revert to the former owner.
In that case, the court referred to the decisions in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial