Please note: this text may be incomplete. For more information about this OCR, view
About OCR text.
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
â– 'â– 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,