So far, only two aldermen have made public their views of how unfair the City of Monroe's policy is to charge some city residents extra assessments for public street reconstruction work.
More council members must join Thurston Hanson (Ward 7) and Jan Lefevre (Ward 4) if there is to be a change in a city policy Hanson correctly called "moronic" in a Times guest commentary April 21. City residents have their chance to help persuade aldermen to change course at 7:30 p.m. Tuesday during a public hearing in Monroe City Council chambers.
At issue are assessments that 23 property owners along a two-block stretch of 16th Avenue would receive for street reconstruction work the city plans for this summer. Residents' bills will be between $1,060 and $2,971, depending on the lot size.
"I don't have that" money, Damian Dunlavey told the Times last month. Dunlavey, 33, is a machinist with five children who would owe the city $2,631 for the work. No doubt, there are a number of other property owners and families along the 600 and 700 blocks of the street that would be in the same predicament.
When the assessments first were brought to the council, city officials said the policy was to require property owners to share the costs for the reconstruction of streets that aren't considered high-traffic areas. Then, curiously, the city's story changed to be that residents were charged only if grants were not available to cover their share of the cost.
Either reason for the policy is unacceptable. One charges people because of where they live. The other charges people inconsistently - depending on when grants are and aren't available.
Either property owners should be assessed for all street reconstruction projects, or for none. The best answer is none.
Road construction work should be covered by the general fund, which property owners already are paying into with taxes and fees. Sending property owners an extra bill for road work is, as Hanson said, double taxation. The council should stand up for taxpayers and end this puzzling policy.
Hanson, to his credit, has suggested some solutions. They include asking property owners if they want the work to be done if they are going to be assessed, creating financial hardship criteria that would exempt residents who truly can't afford the assessment, and putting road projects to a referendum.
There has to be a better way for the city to get major street projects done than charging a handful of residents a couple thousand dollars whenever other money isn't available. If the council takes the easy path and proceeds with business as usual, it is not doing its job - at least not the kind of job taxpayers should be expecting.
More council members must join Thurston Hanson (Ward 7) and Jan Lefevre (Ward 4) if there is to be a change in a city policy Hanson correctly called "moronic" in a Times guest commentary April 21. City residents have their chance to help persuade aldermen to change course at 7:30 p.m. Tuesday during a public hearing in Monroe City Council chambers.
At issue are assessments that 23 property owners along a two-block stretch of 16th Avenue would receive for street reconstruction work the city plans for this summer. Residents' bills will be between $1,060 and $2,971, depending on the lot size.
"I don't have that" money, Damian Dunlavey told the Times last month. Dunlavey, 33, is a machinist with five children who would owe the city $2,631 for the work. No doubt, there are a number of other property owners and families along the 600 and 700 blocks of the street that would be in the same predicament.
When the assessments first were brought to the council, city officials said the policy was to require property owners to share the costs for the reconstruction of streets that aren't considered high-traffic areas. Then, curiously, the city's story changed to be that residents were charged only if grants were not available to cover their share of the cost.
Either reason for the policy is unacceptable. One charges people because of where they live. The other charges people inconsistently - depending on when grants are and aren't available.
Either property owners should be assessed for all street reconstruction projects, or for none. The best answer is none.
Road construction work should be covered by the general fund, which property owners already are paying into with taxes and fees. Sending property owners an extra bill for road work is, as Hanson said, double taxation. The council should stand up for taxpayers and end this puzzling policy.
Hanson, to his credit, has suggested some solutions. They include asking property owners if they want the work to be done if they are going to be assessed, creating financial hardship criteria that would exempt residents who truly can't afford the assessment, and putting road projects to a referendum.
There has to be a better way for the city to get major street projects done than charging a handful of residents a couple thousand dollars whenever other money isn't available. If the council takes the easy path and proceeds with business as usual, it is not doing its job - at least not the kind of job taxpayers should be expecting.
