The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1867-03-27
Communicated.
Public Parks.
Editors Journal:

Editors
The controversy nov goingon in re
lation to the reduction of the width
of the street cumming in front OF the
upper school house, gives me occasion
to state some thoughts that | have en-
/ tertained for some time past on the
subject of public parks. 'ishere are
few persons in our city who will not
testify to the great benefit to be de-
rived by a community from parks. In
a sanitary point of view, they are
necessity, and their influence on the
public taste and morals is plainly OBJ
servable in every city that is blessed
in their possession. Money expended
in this way richly repays the invest
ment.
Evansville has not single place
of this kind to which our people can
resort for recreation and pleasure.
This is to be deplored, and it is
hoped that it may some day be reme-
died. The work ought to be COM
ssmenced as soon as practicable, and IT
: it cannot be begun on a large scale, it
can ona small one, at no great ex-
e9pense, and can be extended as oppor--
& sunity and means warrant, After
awhile Blackford's Grove may possi-
bly, be secured for this purpose, or
some otherlarge piece of ground IN
"a our eastern or southeastern suburbs.
3 bAmory's Grove, in the northern por-
ton of the city, it was hoped. would
be secured for park, but as this de-
sirable piece of property has passed
into private hands, Ito be used,
it is understood, as a place of
public resort for private emolumeHt,)
the hope now is that some other piece
of ground may be secured at no dis
tant day, located in the Northern CT
Northwestern portion of the city.
Without knowing whether the Brink
meyer property-about which there
HAS been much heated controversy.in
connection with the opening of streets
and alleys through it-could be pur-
o chased BY. the city OF not, I would
: suggest that that piece Of ground is
favorably located to accommodate TIE
portion of the city west of Main.
Street. Gould it be purchased by the,
d city for the purposes of a public park,
there would be an end of a disagree.
's,able neighborhood squabble, and, a
~ 49,
RI desirable public object would be ac-
complished. icy ~ rsa,ses aQts7as 5asf
' Sss Of the same nature is another sug-
I, gestion I have to make with reference
to the street running in front of the
School House. Its width, as /
an Informed, is one hundred feet, and
it is not thoroughfare that now is,
or ever will be, used to any great ex-.
tent. The owners of the private prop
erty running back to it contend that,
inasmuch as portion of said proper
ty was given in the first instance for
the purpose of a canal basin, and as
the canal was afterwards filed upin
Il that locality, the surplus of the space
or street not needed for public use,
should revert to the property owners;
and as street, say thirty or forty feet
: wide would be sufficient, and as the
public health would be- benefited by
extending their lots so as to remove
the out-buildings further from their
residences than they now are-
therefore, the street d should be
reduced in width. In addition
saFts 9esl1er objections to the reduc-
ton, it is alleged that, under the ex-
listing law, this cannot be done. Now,
Z Fisb to- say vithppt taking
sides in the controversy, is this3 IF
the proposed reaaetiapl be illegal OF
impracticable, would it not be algood
plan tolmske two parks in that street,
one on the square each side of the
IS ,sshacs Observation-Disclosures in front
OF this edidce clear for play ground
for the pupils? Theparks might be
an say forty feet wide, leaving a passage
thirty feet vide on each side for til,
passage ofyeAicles, &c. The wall
for pedestrians might be through the
sosparks. Persons .cquainted with Gin.
cinnati will rectllect two simila,
parks on Eighth Street. between Vine
npss-anaa Elm and Elm ana Plum. ~
It is true that these parks would