The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1889-10-29
UNION SQUARE.
Has the City Legal Authority to Dispose OF 1t
to the Highest Bidder?

Has the City Legal Authority TO Dispose OF Ii
to the Highest Bidder?
By reference to the proceedings of the
city council last Saturday night, as pub
Hshed in the SUNDAY HERALD, it will be
seen that the city proposes to plat por-
tion of Union square, run streets and alleys
through it, and sell the lots thus made to
whoever will bid the highest price for
them. In this case, as in all others, there
st-2re those who favor this plan of raising
Z revenue to carry on public improvements
and those who are against it and who deny
the city's authority, claiming that the park
has been dedicated TO the use of the public
for all time to come. They say that a dis
tinguished lurist, lately deceased. while on
she bench in this judicial district, had q
case before him involving the right of the
city TO Oppose of q part of this square and
that he decided that il had no such author
ity. Probably the judges decision was
correct, so far as it went on the points in
volved; but it may be doubted whether it
was as far reaching as the opponents of
division ard sale would like to have the
public believe
On the oouor hand, it is most confidently
claimed that the city has clear aud I'M
doubted authority to do Just what is con-
! templated by the resolutions of the city
council.
Councillor Griffin, who says he has
searched all the records carefully, asserts
that there is nothing in the townsite grant
TO restrict the city's authority in the mat
ter of disposing of the lots and blocks
Tho authority of city council in a terri
tory to pass a certain class of ordinances
underits limited charter is unquestionable.
The advocates of dividing up Union square
appear to proceed upon the as
sumption, or fact, that by an ordin-
anco OF former council the square
Iii .a..g4 ~
and that the present council has adequate
powe" under the charter to pass an ordi-
nance repeating the first one III relation
thereto. This much is to be inferred from
the resolution offered by Councillor Griffin
and which the council adopted as follows:
Resolved, That the city attorney be instructed
~ draw up au ordinance 10 nully any ordinance
or resolution heretofore passed making Union
square pubic park or which IN any way inter
ferCs with the sale OF the same by The city; pre-
vided, that no vested rights be infringed on.
The question Of the city's authority to
sell will most certainly 90 before the court
Of competent jurisdiction for final settle
ment. This will come about when the at
tempt is made to sell the lots Is proposed by
the council
Below are given the views of few citi-
zens on the proposed action of the city
council:
A. c. Snyder. OF the real estate firm of Reed Z
Snyder, says the square ought 10 be divided as
proposed, and that the quicker II Is done the
better.
John A Boyle did not care TO express On opin-
ion now. There was time when ne favored the
sale OF the square. Subsequently the judge Of
the First district court had decided that the city
had no right 10 dispose of il.
S. $. Schram fayors the proposed plan. We
need sewers. He would have one half of the
proceeds Of the sale expended on the sewers, and
the other half should go 10 purchase twenty or
thirty acres OF cheap land, 10 be laid out and
improved for public park and TO establish
city hospital.
Ransford Smith is in favor OF the scheme II Il
IS legal The city has borrowed about all that
il can under the United States law relating TO
the indebtedness which cities and counties in
the territory may contract Consequently if the
money for carrying on needed public improve
merits can be raised by the sale OF o part of
Union square, that is the proper thing to do.
Nathan Tanner, jr., is opposed to the proposed
plan of raising revenue, he says the time will
come when the city will need the land, and when
rs value will be so greatly enhanced that it
celld only be secured at an eXorbitant price.
Thomas ID. Dee agreed with Mr.. Tanners
views. The situation is central, and the prop
erty is all the while increasing in value. In
few years the city viii need it for public build
inrs, q market, etc.
William Binford took the ground that the city
had neither legal nor moral right 10 dispose of
the square. 1t belongs TO all the people and the
, city council has no right TO go into the real
estate business.
County Clerk John Hamer would like TO see
the square reserved. Some day he would expect
10 see magnificent joint city aud county puild
ing erected there.
A Il. Nelson strongly fayors the sale. Before