The daily intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Territory [i.e. Wash.]) 1876-1881, 1877-08-18
THE Town LOT QUESTION Our !

THE TswN LOT QUESTION Our re-
marks about the exorbitant prices of
land in this city, in yesterdays issue,
have raised hornets nest among some
Of those who may be properly termed
| the hOld-back element in Seattle. But
We can provo all we said, or we would
not have sad it. We expected to be
snapped up on it. but not from the
source which has always sneered at the
pioneer element and alluded to one of
them less than two years ago as a
"three- ball banker" That paper now
constitutes itself the champion of ma
ligned innocence and swallows ali its
own utterances for the past six years
by the declaration that "If any con-
siderable amount of capital brought
here for investment in any legitimate
business has been turned away on &C.
count OF the high price of town lots,
we do not know it. and don't credit the
story" In answer to this, we can say
that notably, among other instances,
Capt. Hall. who established the ship
yard at Port Ludlow, came to Puget
Sound some three or four years ago to
start shipyard He had not heard of
any other place but Port Townsend and
Seattle, prior to coming here. aud when
he came here his first visit was to do
nation settler who wanted one hundred
dollars a month ground rent. Capt.
Hall then asked what it would cost to
buy the lot and was told $4,000. He
went TO another pioneer who said he
could have the same amount of ground
for Sc, 800. This would oblige him to
lighter his timbers from the mill, over
mile in scows, to the shipyard So
he went down the Sound and finally
ran across that big-hearted gentleman,
the late Arthur Phinney, who offered
him all the ground lie wanted. rent free,
if he would start q ship yard and buy
his lumber. The consequence was that
seventeen sailing vessels were built at
Port Ludlow inside of four years, and
forty men employed at an average Of
three dollars per day for two-thirds of
that time. Thus Seattle has lost $l2O
per day for upwards of three years by
the cupidity and avarice of men who
were donated their land. As to the
privstions of the early settlers here,
they have been greatly exaggerated.
Thousands of men are liviag to-day,
who suffered greater hardships in the
mountains Of California from lS49 to
1859, and never had foot of land
given them by the Government. As
TO high lent we will cite two cases.
No one will claim that the row Of
wooden shanties between Front street
and Mill cost over $500 apiece and they
stand on donated land. Some Of them
rent for $50 . month aud none for less
than $50. If = building that cost $500
brings in $500. this is only seventy per
cent per annum. Then take the build
ing occupied by the paper which &C.
cuses us Of such exaggeration, and we
speak understandingIy, for we were q
former tenant of it. While We were
there the lower floor paid $50 per
month and four rooms on the upper
floor $50 more, making total of $l20
per month for building which cost
81. $50 on lot costing $3.50 more, or q
total Of $2,l00. Thus the rents of that
building are abont 20 per cent per an
mum. IL money is worth one and a
half per cent per month. rents should
not exceed three. If there was any ad-
equ,te protection against fire, these
rents would not be 90 exorbitant; but
it is . terrible price for such finder
boxes IS two-thirds at the buildings
| are