Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1882-09-28
The VKhnrf PronerIr and sheda.

The Wharf Property aud Sheds.
SAVANNAH, September 2S.-EiitOr Morning
Ae1rs: L ask for Acknowledgement cautiously
but as individually interested in some OF
the property so much impaired, by the con-
centration of business in the eastern and
western ends of the city, tributary to the
Central and Savannah, Florida and Western
Roads. I have read the report of the Coun-
Gil Committee on the erection Of a shed by
Mr.. Kelly on his wharf. One of the reasons
given for refusing him this privilege is,
that the shed was destroyed by fire, which,
while burning, jeOparded other property;
and the fear is, that If re-erected, it will
again take fire and again leopard property
in the neighborhood. Is this q sound or
reasonable objection Why Mr.. Kelly
should be deprived of his chance
to rent his wharf or get an income
from it, when he is still bound to pay the
city tax upon It? again, is this rule to apply
to all the other shielded wharYes in the city?
Suppose the shed erected on the DeRenne
wharf, between DraYtOn and Abercorn
stTeets-the heart of the city-is burned
down, Is it to be understood that it cannot be
re erected IL put up not more than twenty
feet high and timed, because ito burned
down and jeoparded other property con-
tiguous to it, and the same thing may occur
again? But let us go to another reason given
The illegality of such erectiOns. Section
2. page 254, clearly permits ''the erection of
open sheds within any of the city limits, so
that such open sheds be not more than one
story and be covered with tin or other in
combustible material" This is the lan-
guage of the ordinance, and fancy that all
the present wharf sheds were erected under
this ordinance. Look at section 8, page
Z56, and read, whenever any house, shed
or structure hereafter to be built within the
fire limits, same shall be covered with slate,
tin or other incombustible msterial." 1t is
not BY any means clear to my mind that the
ordinances prohibit the erection Of open
sheds not more than one story or twenty
feet high, provided same is covered with
tin, in sny OF the fire limits OF the city.
Reference is made in the Council report to
q relief ordinance passed May 80, 1866, in
which allusion is made 20 certain Illegal
erectiOus or repairs on account OF war
exigencies. This could not apply to wharf
sheds, for really there was but little use for
the Wharyes at that time. But supposing It
60 apply, are not the emergencies as great or
greater now for the leniency Of Council as
they were then under the almost entire
uesIucliOH VI INC pIOpCAbJ Inc MAaI1
owner has been the heaviest sufferer In all
the recent trimmings to the water by the rail
roads. wharf left uncovered cannot get
much, If any, Of the business even yet left
to down town yet taxes and expenses and
keeping same in order go on, and the holder
has 10 SIT and see the property perfectly
useless. The reply may be, "No need Of its
being uncovered and useless-it can be COW
cred, II the owner will conform to Council
requirements" Council requirements are
so onerous that no wharf owner, under
present rentals, can afford such a covering
as they demand upon such improbable
properly The question in my mind is
whether there is any ordinance prohibiting
the erection Of sheds not more than one story
or twenty feet high, covered with tin, on
any wharf in the city limits. What say you,
Mr.. Editor Give US your opinion.
WHARF OWNER.