"The fact that an improvement confers a general benefit on the community does not mean that certain property cannot benefit specially." Molbreak, 66 Wis. 2d at 699, 225 N.W.2d 894 (first citing Brock v. Lemke, 51 Haw. 175, 455 P.2d 1, 3 (1969) ; then citing 63 C.J.S. Municipal Corps. § 1314) (special assessment); see also Red Top Farms, 177 Wis. 2d at 829, 503 N.W.2d 354 ("A special benefit ... accrues to a property owner in addition to the benefit enjoyed by other property owners in the community."). ¶ 37 Because special assessments can be levied only "for local improvements ... the circuit court must examine whether the improvement was local, that is, whether the purpose was to accommodate particular property owners and confer a special benefit."
The fact that an improvement confers a general benefit on the community does not mean that certain property cannot benefit specially. Brock v. Lemke (1969), 51 Haw. 175, 455 P.2d 1, 3; 63 C. J. S., Municipal Corporations, p. 1057, sec. 1314. In the case of the property zoned "Residential A," we conclude that the landowners did rebut the presumption the validity of the assessment and that the trial court erred in its finding that because the highest and best use of the residential parcel is for development with the commercial property adjacent to it that it is therefore subject to the special assessments.
The determination as to the special benefits to be received by a particular lot within the improvement district is generally conceded to be a legislative function of the common council of the town. Brock v. Lemke, 51 Haw. 175, 455 P.2d 1 (1969); State ex rel. Londerholm v. City of Topeka, 201 Kan. 729, 443 P.2d 240 (1968); Chicago North Western Ry. Co. v. City of Riverton, 70 Wyo. 84, 246 P.2d 789 (1952); See, Weitz v. Davis, 102 Ariz. 40, 424 P.2d 168 (1967). Being a legislative determination, such a determination is conclusive "and not subject to review by the courts unless it clearly appears that the determination was based on erroneous principles of law, or was . . . arbitrary, corrupt, fraudulent, or a manifest abuse of legislative authority, . . . or unless the assessment so far transcends the limit of equality that its execution will become extortion and confiscation. . . ."