Fifteen Property Owners Say the Yesler Avenue Assessment Is Illegal
Residents petition City Hall against a reassessment for grading Yesler Avenue—formerly Mill Street—arguing the work was already paid for, the statute of limitations has run, and the city has no authority to charge them twice.
Fifteen residents of Yesler Avenue have filed a petition and a complaint with the city clerk protesting against the reassessment of Yesler Avenue for grading. The complaint springs out of an old case resulting from the grading of the avenue when it was known by the name of Mill Street. The residents protested against the assessment and carried the case into court, where it was decided in their favor, and after an appeal it was again decided against the city. Then the last legislature enacted a law permitting reassessment, and the council a few days ago passed an ordinance reassessing the street for the work done some years ago.
The complainants are as follows: James Parrie, Margaret Sullivan, Ella W. Peterson, O. Probst, Jane White, John Christ, David E. Durie, Albert King, Anna C. Wunder, Joseph H. Brandt, Alexander McRae, J.W. Van Brocklin, D.K. Howard, Lisette Nahar and J.S. Chase.
The petitioners object to the ordinance providing for the reassessment on the ground that the council had no authority to pass on the matter since it has once been decided in the courts. The following objections are stated:
That the city of Seattle had no authority to grade Mill Street, now Yesler Avenue, under Ordinance No. 447, and no power to levy any assessment thereunder.
That the city of Seattle has no authority to make the reassessment, and the council has no jurisdiction to do so.
That the work was never done within the specifications of the ordinance, and was, in fact, not done.
That the reassessment is made to pay for a large quantity of work never authorized by ordinance, nor legally authorized at any time, and such expense never was and is not now a charge upon any property of the city.
That the assessment district created is illegal, unjust and inequitable.
That the assessment proposed is much larger than the actual cost of any improvement under the ordinance, and much in excess of any benefits received.
That the entire assessment under Ordinance No. 447 has been paid and the lien wholly discharged.
That there are no warrants outstanding and unpaid for the improvement, but all warrants issued under Ordinance No. 447 have been fully paid.
That the statute of limitations has run, and the city has no claim against any of the property proposed to be reassessed.
That the judgment of the superior court was a bar to any further proceedings.
That the proceedings of reassessment are without authority of law, irregular, illegal and void.
“The assessment proposed is much larger than the actual cost of any improvement under the ordinance, and much in excess of any benefits received.”
Yesler Way remains one of Seattle's oldest streets, and the fight over who pays for grading it is an early version of a familiar civic argument: when infrastructure costs are reassessed, property owners organize, lawyer up and accuse City Hall of double-charging. The named petitioners make the dispute feel less like abstract municipal housekeeping and more like a neighborhood uprising.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.