Minutes 01/08/1924 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~'an~a~y 8~ 1~24 interest therein. Recently in the case of 'Powers and others v 0ity of Richmond,t in 122 Va. 32~, decided Jan. 24, 1918, ~the Supreme Court of Appeals passed upo~ this charter_provision and held that taxes due ~he City were liens upon the property iD the hands of~me remainder- men. The charter of the Olty of Portsmouth is identical with the charter or,he City of Ric~mond before the amendment, ~oth of which were formed after the provi~ions of the state law concern- ~ng taxes. Hence if the C~ty ef Portsmouth desires it may !nye its charter c~anged to confers te the prov~siens of the Richmond. amended charter, and in t_his case the City will not lose the There is, however, another side of the question, ~nd that is whether it is right for the City_ to sllew the person Who has the use and enjoyment ef the property to omit paying the taxes and then c~h~_rge it ~gainst a person ~ho hms received no benefit from the property and who will be compelled to pay something another o~ht to pay, it will be r~tnral for the tenmnt to neglect paying the taxes because the income from the property is all that he will ~eceive and the less he pays. t,h.e more he ~ill receive-. The remainder-men will justly say it s the City's duty to collect the t~x fr~m the person in e~joyment off the p~eperty ~ud it is an injustice to him for the City to neglect this duty and the~ make him ps~v the I have attempted to ~bmit both views of the matter as feed for thought. ther~ ~tl be hard oases under either rule~. This is one of ~e m~tters which consider when we take the qu~estien ef amending the City eba~ter~ But after all 1 think we should very truly, 0n motion of ~r. Broo~s, R. C, Barely, City Atiorney~# the 'recommendatien qf the N~nage~ .was concurred in, 5th. #in accordance with instruction,s given at the last meeting of the Council, I am forv~rding herewith drawing showing lo~ation and details of oil station at Cqurt and ~ythe Sts. The sidewalk en the south side of the property has been re-lecated~in accordance with a suggest~ienmade to me By Dr. Vernon Brooks. This has p. ermitted a widening of the stree~ as indicated. I believe this will considerably lessen the hmzard due to traffic at this point. Af%er ~his mo~ficatio~ ef ~he ~idewalkhas been made, the~e will remain a narrow triangular strip of land belonging t~ the Cmtywhich will be uaeless for street p~urposes., i% should therefore be sold as presc~ibedby law~ I als~ believe that a sufficient width of side~lk should be acquired in front of Alexander'm house to give a reasonable communication for pedestrimms. This would probably re~uI~e the purchase of the.~ prcper~y covered' by his steps. ~th the oil station fronting on Court St. as I h~-ve already reported, the ~ran~- ing of the ~e~ni~ or mrs erectzon is an executive function and the only problem now before the 0ounci~ is the of the ~ : to the City a% the northwest corner ef Court and Wythe th the ~osed and the 'sale of the remaining useless property, ~elmeve the en~vo m~tter can be finally disposed On motion e~Nr. ~recks, the N~n~gerw~s muthorized to acquire or cond~mns~f~icien~ lamd to give a l0 ft. sidewalk te northwest corner of Fourth and WYthe streets, te conform ~[r. 0~st excused from voting~ Ayes-- Brooks, Eutchins, to plans Smith~ to, to eree~ a gasoline s~at'iom be agreed , t~e ~nager, Counci~ reserving the righ~ t.o' ¢toSe ~IN~D ~SI~SS The f~llowlng erdi~ance, ~hi~h'had been p~aced~ on its'first reading ~y 'Council December 2?th, was take~ u~ and- rea~: ~ ~ Am~din~neeP~hibitimg Smoking o~ the O~yi~ of ~ted CIEa~e~es, , Etc~, in~o ~e ~aiting ROo~ off Fer~ Te~inals ~d Oa~i~ ef the the erdins~ce be emended by s~riking out the words t 2,. Ordinance be ~iepted, as amended. The motion' wa~ lest~ ~ £ourths vo~e bemmg ~ecesssr~f fief passage: L.E.B.), 2. ~/hite, The following ordinance, which hsd also been placed on its first reading December An Drdi~nce Res~ricti~i Rotte~ SEating in the City of Portamouth~ MM. Smile:mewed'that the ordinance be amended ~ym~-~ing the fine not less than ~ less than $2.00 nor More than ~