SEACPM18831019_Page_4

385
COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEATTLE
Oct 19/83

410 contained no express repealing clause whatever. Therefore in
the absence of an express repealing clause, the omitted portion
not being repugnant to any provision of Ordinance 410 may
be allowed to stand and the two may be read in pari ma-
teria. These are simple suggestions thrown out without con-
sultation with the City's legal advisor and may be without
merit. But I entertain no doubt of the legal proposition
that remedial legislation may be had by a curative Ordi-
nance and by a configurative act of the Legislature now in
session which may have a retrospective operation and cure
any possible defect in Ordinance No. 410. If this course is pur-
sued, the serious complications which are now threatening to
entail litigation and possible pecuniary loss upon the City
may be avoided. If on the other hand, I should approve
the Ordinance herewith returned, what will be the consequence?
All the proceedings had for the condemnation of the land would
be vitiated and annulled. The Ordinance providing for
the grading of Jackson Street as then established, would become
inoperative as this new proposed Ordinance does not em-
brace the same territory. It would operate as a breach of Mr.
Alexander's Contract, because neither he nor the Sureties on
his bond have up to this time consented to any modification
of the Contract, which would be necessitated by the change
contemplated in this new Ordinance. New proceedings for the
condemnation of this Street would have to be instituted, new
assessors appointed, new surveys made, new assesment rolls
and lists prepared and in fact all acts already performed would
have to be recommenced and completed de novo. All damages
sustained by the Contractor would have to be paid by the City
and the City would probably lose all payments already made.
A new Ordinance for the improvement of the Street would have
to be enacted and a new Contract entered into, and in all
probability refractory property owners liable to pay taxes for
improvements would take advantage of any [-------]
to evade the payment of the improvement tax and impose
additional burden to be borne by [-----] people of the City