Policy Issue Case 6-1

Part I: Post your analysis for part a and the portion of part b where you agreed with the plaintiffs.

Part II: Respond to two other students' posts, but use your analysis for part b where you disagreed with the plaintiffs - your Part II posts should take the opposite position, clearly addressing the points raised by the original poster in your rebuttal. Your posts should include specific examples in response to comments made by the student. Do not just agree or disagree, do not just offer observations. Your responses must further the discussion; cite your sources

a) After analyzing the facts of the case, I feel that the property owners on Oak Ridge Street should not be liable for the cost of the street-widening project. The project does not give any benefits to the property, in fact, they would lose valuable property and the street would be transformed from a quiet, low-density, mainly local traffic street to a noisy, high-density public thoroughfare. In this case, the general public have more benefits from this project than the property owners, therefore the city should use the public tax revenue to fund this project instead of using special assessment bonds. “A special assessment is a compulsory levy made against certain property to defray part or all of the cost of a specific improvement or service that is presumed to be of general benefit to the public and of particular benefit to the property against which the special assessment is levied. Special assessment financing is allowed under the laws of many states. Generally, a majority of owners of the property that will be assessed must agree to the formation of a special assessment district, sometimes called a local improvement district” (Wilson, 197). As the result, the city did not get majority votes from the property owners before issuing the bonds, therefore, the property owners have the right to protest the city’s actions.

b) Since the city had agreed to make the bonds general obligations of...