The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1888-04-05
DIVIDING TAE BLOCKS.

The HERALD fully AGREES with tn
two hundred and sixty odd citizens ant
frrne whose petition was presented t.
the City Council on Tuesday evening
that the blocks should be opened By
north and south streets through ihs
centre; the plan proposed also seems
good one in most respects, contempIat-
ing, as it does. the bringing to street
line of much valuable land. But we do
not agree that this is matter for the
CITY Council tc lake in hand. On the
contrary we doubt the wisdom, the JUS
tice and even the legality OF the Coun-
GLIDING what is suggested by the Pc
titioners. 1t is q matter for the land
owners to arrange AMI not for the
Council to order. The blocks are too
large, all will concsde. That is to say,
they are too large for the con-
yenience of business, though they
may not be for the purposes OF
the farmer and gardener. They
should be divided, and opened, that the
land NAV all be occupied and used. But
who will derive the most beneht from
the division and opening, the people as
= municipality or the owners OF the
land? The latter, as a matter or course.
1t is to their advantage to throw open
the proposed streets, and it Will e
money in their pockets to Go 1t. In
directly, OF course, the corporation Will
be benefited in that it will be able to put
a higher taxable value on the land thus
brought to a street; but the great gain
will accrue to the landowners. Let US
take the six blocks fronting on East
Temple Street between South Temple
and Third South; the East Temple
Street frontage is worth all the way
from $500 to 50 900 foot, while ten rods
back the land is of trifing value, because
it cannot be approached. Fully one
third of the land embraced in the
six blocks is not utilized, unless 1t bet
growing vegeta les and fruits-a profit
less use for soil within ten rods OF land
that will fetch in the market $1,000 e
foot. If thssa blocks were opened by
streets, all this interior land would be
worth very nearly as much as
that on East Temple; its owners would
be made rich at once by the increase in
value. Would they be willing to give
this Increased value INTO the city treas
ury2 Hardly! They would one and
all pocket tue money, and wish they
had more. Then why should the city
go to the trouble and expense of open
ing these blocks? Why should the !
Council make these private citizens !
rich?
It occurs to US that it is enough for |
the city to do to accept the |
streets and keep them in repair |
when they shalt have been conveyed,
without expense, to the corporation.
It also occurs to US that the owners of
this interior and now worthless land |
should be only too glad to have the city
accept streets leading to it.
It may be argued that unless the
Council shall order the opening OF
these blocks the thing will never be
done. Very well. That will not be the
concern of the corporation, but only
the affair of the lot owners who stand
against their personal advantage. If
man is blind to his own interests in
ma ter of this kind, we know of no law
or rule Of equity which requires the
City Council to take charge Of his af-
fairs and act IN his behalf.
THE HERALD would like to see the
blocks, especially those in the ceHtral
part of the city, divided by north end
south streets; but we would very much
dislike to see the city put to dollar ofex-
pense for the improvement. The public
will do its part when it pays for keeping
The new streets in repair.
In this connection it may be worth
while to remind those interested that
vhen Commercial Street was opened
he owners of the land did not ask the
,ity to buy it, but regarded themselves
.s very. fortunate whsn they induced
he Council to accept the street as
public thoroughfare.