, 1881-02-06

! Ills 1OL iQUulSs 14C ID lJ40 kA4<ts At*AA
this tax once, he is forever thereafter to be
exempt from paying paving tax. This Is
| delusion and a snare. Ills lot, instead Of
being taxed once IN ten years for paving the
! street for the number of front feet, is to be
taxed annually during the centuries that are
| to come for repaying the 1000, or 5000, or
1000 miles Of streets which may be in the
| City OF Chicago. II he live on a residence
street which may not wear ont rapidly, his
| lot will be taxed at the most only once in tic
! lifetime of the pavement; while under this
| proposed law he will be called On annually
to pay for repavlne all the business and other
heayily-used streets. where the payements
are short-liyed and costly.
1t Is urged that the life of the pavements
Oh the thoroughfares and business streets is
short, and the biennial, tricnniaI, and quadren
nlal renewal Of those streets is costly and M
unjust burden OIL the property ROW specially
taxed for that purpose. This Is not true in
any sense. Men owning property on streets
where the business traffic is so great as to
wear out the street-pavements rapidly have
the value Of that property and its annual
rents lnagnifiel in far greater proportion than
the mere cost of repeated paving. If the OWL
ers Of property on Wabash avenue, State,
Clark, Dearborn, Wells, Lake, Madison,
Washington, Randolph, Monroe, and other
streets have to pay more frequently for street.
paving than owners Of property on other
streets, they must remember tint the same
reason which makes this rcpaying necessary
is the one which gives to their property its
immense value. Are they willing to be taxed
upon the value of their lots, buildings, stocks
OF merchandise. and general business to pay
for paving for all time hereafter the many
thousands Of other streets which are to be
paved and rcpayed in the years to come:
Would these people drive away this heavy
traffic which wears out their street-paye-
1nents to save the cost Of repairing as often as
may be necessary?
Is not the present rule, by which everYman
pays his own bill anu pays the bills Of no
other,-pays for paving In front of his own
lots and not III front OF other peoples lots,-
the wi5est, best, and most satisfactory way?
We have not yet discovered how to pave
streets in ";s permanent manner.'' Until we
do. there will be repavtng just AS often as the
business done on the street requires 1t.
To adopt the proposed law would lead to
interminable confusion aud iobbery. The
whole sum allowed now to be raised by tax
ation for general purposes would not be snf-
ficient for repav!ng i'll ia permanent MALI
ner" the streets which would demand such
improvement. Each of the twcnty-four
wards would at least demand an equal pro-
portion Of street-pnying. At present the tax
for repaving and paving street intersections,
and In front Of alleys and public property, is
z largo annual charge; what will that charge |
be if the cost Of repairing the entire streets
of the city is added thereto?
This bill is general in its character, and !
applies equally to I'LL the other cities III the
State, and we question whether the people of
those cities wish to be saddletl with system |
which provides for q general tax to improve |
private property.
The present limit on city taxation for gen.
eral purposes is 2 per cent. II this law |
should pass, 2 ner cent would not be sniff
clent to raise the revenue needed for this !
'' permanent Improvement Of the streets Of
this city. Beginning perhaps at the rate of |
one. million OF dollars year, the annual
revenue needed for this work Of Improving
the streets in a ''pernlanent manner" would
soon eXceeed ten millions Of dollars and
still the streets would wear out anu have to
be repayed as often as they do now. The
mere declaration BY the Council that street
as BEEN paved permanently" will not
make the street pavement last any longer or Is
DC any more "perinanent - than 1t would
,e in the absence of any such declaration.