Columbia University Libraries Digital Collections: The Real Estate Record

Real estate record and builders' guide: [v. 100, no. 2577: Articles]: August 4, 1917

Text version:

REAL ESTATE AND (Copyright, 1917, b7 Tb. Record and Ould. Co.) NEW YORK, AUGUST 4, 1917 QUESTION OF ASH AND TRADE WASTE REMOVAL Cities Throughout Country Solve Their Own Problems With¬ out Reference to Other Communities—Solution at ' Buffalo By JAMES A. MAGOFFIN, of Buffalo, N. Y. I N the complex organizaton of our ■'■ present urban communities, there is a constantly increasing tendency to widen and enlarge the scope of municipal ac¬ tivities. What fifty years ago was a purely private enterprise is to-day an affair of the city. With the enlargement of the city's activities, there also come difficult problems for solution. What shall be the extent of the new service taken over by the city? How shall its operations be financed? Shall the ser¬ vice be performed by the city with its own employees or shall it be rendered through a private contractor? For ex¬ ample, the schools are open to all chil¬ dren in the community while water is furnished only to those who pay for it. The removal of ashes, garbage and trade refuse is one of the questions that is being studied and discussed by nearly every city in the country to-day. At present tliere are no two cities which treat the subject exactly alike; there are shades of difference in nearly every city. Some do not make any collection, that is by the city, of any ashes or trade waste from any source. Others collect from dwellings only. Some collect the ashes where they are the result of burning coal for heating purposes. Others remove them from all commercial buildings. In nearly every case, each city has solved its own individual problems, with little or no reference to what was done in others. Outside of a few of the larger cities, the removal of ashes was a matter of private enterprise, until quite recently. Tn a sparsely settled community, little or no inconvenience is suffered by such private removal. When the comm.unity is thickly settled, the removal of ashes, as suits the individual convenience, causes no inconsiderable annoyance. Streets are littered, property is injured and there is no system of regulation in such disposal. The result in each in¬ stance has been that ordinances were en¬ acted regulating the collection and re¬ moval of ashes, garbage and refuse. Then the cities themselves began to remove these articles, finding they could remove them with more convenience to the com¬ munity, than could the irresponsible par¬ ties usually employed theretofore. At first, cities undertook the collection of garbage purely as a sanitary measure. The success of this proposition soon be¬ came manifest and out of regard to the comfort and peace of the community the collection and removal of ashes at regu¬ lar intervals was undertaken. It is in¬ tended in this article to discuss only the extent to which the city should go in rendering such service. No one disputes but that the city out of consideration of the community's health should remove all garbage from whatever source derived. That is a proposition admitted bv all. The removal of ashes, however, by the city is a ques¬ tion that is not so readily solved. At the outset a sharp distinction should be drawn between ashes which are the result of heating dwellings and commer¬ cial buildings and trade waste, i. e.. the refuse made in a manufacturing plant which cannot be sold as part of its out¬ put or product. The latter is something the removal and disposal of which is com¬ puted in the cost of production and can¬ not justly be said to be an object of the city's consideration. Furthermore, I do not think there are any cities which ever seriously considered the establishment of a service for the removal of pure trade waste by the city, to be paid for by funds raised by general taxation. Tn this climate, the ashes made In oflRre and commercial buildings are the result of consuming coal for heatiner purposes, during at least seven months of the year. And during that time the power used for lighting and elevator ooeration is a by¬ product. In BufTalo. N. Y., where this writer is quite familiar with conditions, no more coal is consumed in our office buildings, from October to May, than is needed to heat them. Tn fact were it not for the necessity of having heat, it would be more economical to secure the power for lighting and operation of elevators from outside sources. Hence office build¬ ings, department stores and the like are compelled by climatic conditions to make ashes for the same reason as a house¬ holder. Corporation Suffers. • Again the householder receives the benefit of practicallv everv service es¬ tablished bv the city. The schools, parks, libraries and the like are open to him without cost. The corporation which happens to be unfortunate enough to own an office building derives no benefit therefrom, yet it is taxed heavily. It is maintained by some that no ashes should be taken from any building oper¬ ated for profit. Where is the distinction to be drawn? Man m.ust have a cover for his head; he cannot sleep outdoors. Also the lawyer must have an office in which to consult with his clients: he cannot carry his office in his hat. Both are neces¬ sities. On the other hand, how about the man who owns a block of flats, which he rents for profit? Is he to have his ashes removed by municipal service and the owner of the office building be de¬ nied that service? Both are onerated for orofit. both pay into the same fund which is used to pay for the service. Then why discriminate in favor of one property as aeainst the other? Wherein is there any justice or fair dealing, to make the owner of a commercial building pav for the removal of his ashes and in addition thereto contribute to the removal of the ashes from a row of flats? Discrimination. Where the removal of ashes is made a local charge against each piece of prop¬ erty benefited, no iniustice is done to them not ohtatniner the service. They have not contributed and have not been affected by such method. But^ sttch is not the case in the great majority^ of cities. Generally, and without exception, the citv estimates the amount of money needed to remove ashes and garbage; then levies a tax upon all property in¬ discriminately for that object. As a re¬ sult every owner of property In the com¬ munity contributes his proportionate share for the rerroval of the same. In Buffalo, and I believe it is the same else¬ where, the proportionate amount collect¬ ed by the city through taxation for the collection of ashes is as much or greater than the cost to the city of making such collection. For that reason, Buffalo col¬ lects ashes from all office and commer¬ cial buildings. To tax a property for the removal of ashes and to receive from such property as much or more than the cost of such collection, and then to de¬ prive such property of the benefit of the service, amounts to double taxation. It was so held in a Kansas case, where a tax was levied for fire protection upon all property indiscriminately and certain properties were denied the service. The court, in an action brought, compelled a reduction in the assessment made equal to the amount levied on the exempted property for such service. It was demonstrated in an action, brought against the city of Buffalo, N. Y., by owners of business property, to com¬ pel the said city to continue its collec¬ tion of ashes from commercial buildings, where thc same had been threatened to be discontinued bv the then Comm.is- sioner of Public Works, that the actual cost to the city to remove ashes was less than the amount the city received from each individual piece of property through taxation for such service. That no doubt is true in every large city. The office building puts one or more loads of ashes at the curb, where they are easily loaded. Such is not the case with small dwell¬ ings: there they must be gathered in small quantities and at considerable more expense than where concentrated. Tn the aforesaid case Mr. Justice Pooley said, in giving decision against the city: "It is said that the removal of garbage is a function of municipal gov¬ ernment and sanctioned by the general welfare clause, if not directly authorized by Charter provision. It is claimed that the removal of ashes is not. but it is cer¬ tain that it is a necessity common to all, and may properly be assumed by the mu¬ nicipality. If it is so assumed, and the owners of property are required to pay into the treasury a fund set aside for this specific purpose, then there would be no reason whv that fund should not be eoiiallv applied to the benefit of all con¬ tributing to it." Again the Committee on Ordinances of the Board of Aldermen of the Citv of Buffalo, in recommending the adoption of the present ordinance under wliich th« city is now operating and under which ashes are taken from all commercial buildings, said concerning an ordinance adopted shortlv prior thereto depriving commercial buildings of the ash service: "that it was shown that business prop¬ erties of the type involved paid a very- large share of the taxes for the main¬ tenance of the public schools, parks and other city institutions, in return for which they receive nothing. Besides it appeared that as the present appropria¬ tion for these collections is insufficient, these same properties will have to pay their share of such further sums as m.ust be appropriated without receiv'pcr ^nv further or different service therefom. We are satisfied that the amendment to the ordinances was passed without due con¬ sideration by the Common ^ounril as to its consequences, and that its enforce¬ ment at this time would be uniust and would create an unfair discrimination against the properties affected. RECOBD AND GUIDB IS IN ITS FIFTIKTH YEAR OF CONTINUOUS PUBLICATION,