strictions. Provision for amending the limit when necessary, by popular vote, overcomes most of the difficulties. Fifth, to assure that the burden of the cost of government is borne as equitably as possible, the assessment of property should be uniformly upon a 100 per cent basis of current market value. As an aid in the very important work of assessing the hundreds of millions of dollars of real property in our cities today, tax maps and land value maps are essential, and our engineers can contribute effectively by furnishing such maps and keeping them up currently. Sixth, it is possible that new sources of revenue should be called upon to supplement the general property tax, and offer a measure of relief to real estate. In this connection consideration should be given to the possibility of extending the principle of the special assessment more generally. Some cities have extended the principle to the financing of parks and other improvements, and even to certain commonly accepted current services. New York and Detroit have proposed recently to finance a portion of the cost of subway construction by this means. The actual application of the principle for this purpose, however, seems today more likely of realization in Detroit than in New York! Seventh, the best thought of the profession must continue to be given to the elimination of waste in the conduct of the government. Civic groups and agencies everywhere point out that there. is waste in our state and local governmental units. It is the opinion of your committee that a certain amount of "red tape" is necessary in government, as a protection to the taxpayers generally, which is not true of private business. This, however, does not condone unnecessary waste due to faulty governmental organization or antiquated methods and machinery for the performance of public services. It is undoubtedly true that there is too much government, and too many governments. These faults, and the improvement of personnel and practices, are being remedied, and the progress made already this century constitutes one of the inspiring hopes of our ability to govern. ourselves. Could adequate comparative tests be made, it seems probable that the major cities would rank favorably with most industries in the effectiveness of administration. Our Society has long been apprised of the very large economic losses existing in industry, and of the many hundreds of millions which are being saved through the committees on standardized practices under the able direction of Secretary Hoover. Similar efforts, though on a smaller scale, are being applied in most of our cities today, through official and non-official committees of citizens having only the public welfare at heart. The members of the Society, whether office-holders or not, must give heed to and assist in these efforts. Eighth, and finally, though it is appreciated that the aids to a solution have not been exhausted, it may be suggested that a counter-spirit must be built up with the people to demand less of their governments and a greater freedom of individual action in performing desired services. One phase of this spirit will be a reduction in the number of laws the representatives in our legislative halls are called upon to enact at each session. There is great need of making existing legislation more uniform and universal among the several states and cities, and the members of the Society can be of material assistance in this task. MUNICIPAL FINANCE FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS By George C. Warren, Chairman of Executive Committee, Warren Brothers Company, Boston, Massachusetts Our president and secretary have asked the speaker to address this convention on this very broad and inexhaustive subject, to which it is hoped I may co-relate, if not add anything new. In paper before A. S. M. I., published in its proceedings for the year 1917, I used the following expression : "The fact, as the writer believes, that payment for street improvement or renewals entirely from general funds of the municipality is a very uneconomic system of finance, is perhaps best proven by the fact that, naming a city which has followed that plan for a considerable number of years, you have almost if not absolutely to a certainty named a city which is either poorly paved or is carrying the load of a heavy bonded indebtedness created for the laying of pavements. Generally both such undesirable features are the result of such a system." In the speaker's judgment, that is as true today as it was at that time, and he has never heard of anyone questioning correctness of that broad statement. Modern demands for city pavements, both as to quantity and quality, to meet the ever-increasing motor vehicle traffic, are such that no city accomplishes much toward meeting that demand through its annual tax budget on a "pay as you go" basis. There are three general modes of payment practiced by different municipalities under their laws and charters, which vary, not only with general laws of the several States, but with individual or class charters within each State. These are enumerated as follows: 1. General tax, the city paying the entire cost, with no frontage or district assessment against abutting property. 2. District assessment. 3. Special improvement assessment against abutting property for the whole or varying percentages of the cost. Let us discuss these in some detail. GENERAL TAX Of all the various methods of meeting the cost of city pavements, this seems to the speaker to be the least desirable from the point of view of the taxpayer's interest, because it necessarily limits the amount of improvement to either: (a) Funds available from City Budget and Annual Tax Rate, which is always inadequate to meet economic demand for extended street improvement; (b) Funds available from sale of City Bonds, which generally means either (and usually both) term of bond payment far beyond reasonable life of pavements laid or excessive bond issues to be met by succeeding generations (note the plural) for improvements which will generally be worn out by the present generation. The speaker is of the opinion that paving bonds of any form should not run for a period exceeding ten (10) or at most fifteen (15) years. True, some pavements have lasted and will continue to last for longer periods, with moderate repairs, and no pavement should be adopted which has not a reasonable estimate, based on practical experience and results, of such endurance under moderate traffic conditions. In every scheme of finance, however, conservatism demands that culmination of payment should be before rather than after the product of the loan is dissipated. In the 1917 paper above referred to, the speaker, under authority of our late conservative, constructive friend and president, Nelson P. Lewis, made for the following statement: "New York has many miles of streets which have been reconstructed two and sometimes three times from the proceeds of long-time bond issues, before the first bord issues have been paid." New York State is continually expending vast sums in reconstruction of roads laid within the past ten or less years from the proceeds of fifty (50) year bond issues. That is "letting the next generation pay" with a vengeance. While citing New York City and State as examples, they are only samples, for many other municipalities and states are in more or less the same situation. There is, however, one advantage in Municipal Bond issues and that is that they can be secured under the municipal credit at lowest rate of interest and the contractor is paid (as he always should be paid) in monthly estimates as work progresses. In other words, the contractor should be engaged on the basis of his experience and reliability as a contractor-not as a financier. However, as will be shown below, these financial advantages can, in most cases, be secured in connection with improvements paid for by assessments. DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS This plan is working out successfully in a number of states. Arkansas, for instance, where improvement districts are created, generally by appointment of a "District Improvement Commission," consisting of three taxpayers in the District, through a petition filed by property-owners with the City Council. The commissioners appointed have full authority to engage engineers and attorneys; make improvement contracts and issue District Bonds for the paving of all streets in the district designated in the petition filed with the City Council. Generally, these bonds are payable semi-annually from one to ten years and are met by a corresponding one to ten-year serial assessments. These assessments against abutters are collected by City Collector and the proceeds turned over to District Commissioners previous to due date of the serial bonds. This system has an advantage of local taxpayers' supervision, as well as better salability of securities than generally prevail in cases of assessments against individual properties as the bonds are a lien against all of the property in this District. The total cost of the improvement cannot exceed 50% of the assessed valuation of all the property in the district. ABUTTER'S ASSESSMENTS This is the system most generally in vogue in cities throughout the country. In New York City, Boston and other of the older cities, it applies as to the "first pavement," but as most of the streets of these older cities were paved with now antiquated types, including macadam, it means that modern pavements, consisting of renewals, are at the expense of the city at large and quite a burden on finance, as well as limitation of modernizing the paving. Furthermore, the tendency of this provision in connection with new streets is toward property-owners selecting or urging cheap and inadequate types of pavement, in the hope |