Omaha daily bee., 1889-01-27
WHAT BUSINESS MEN DESIRE.
They Declare in LAvor OF the Farnam
StrcSt site

the board of tradeop, the city hall issue. A
large majority of theA express themselves in
favor of the present site. We quote a few
of them to-day as follows:
John a. McShane-I wouldn't build on
either of the proposed sites. Most decidedly
Farnam street is the better at present, and
i shall support that site. My idea is that
the present COURTHOUSE, which is too small
for the requirements of the county, should
be torn down, the Jail moved, the loi
graded, aud a city and county building
erected to cover the entire block
would give facilities to both departments
for the next one hundred years. The court
house will have to be torn down anyway in.
SIDE OF ten years and another one built. We
have too mBny judges now for the number OF
rooms we have, except we use the basement.
The public demands that the city and county
otficers shall be IN one building, il not in one
block, as close together as possible, Hence,
the tarnam street site is the proper one FOR
the city hall. Jefferson square is absolutely
necessary for a breathing space. We don't
want to build upon every available piece of
ground we own in the heart of the city.
Jefferson square is worth more than u million
dollars to the city for park purposes. We
should have several more open spaces of "A
like kind, and the city should buy them,
decorate them, and keep them open, and not
build on them.
u. r. Iler-I am in favor of the Faruam
SUlttb SllG. II Is mOTt convenient. anu DIV
far the most scrviCeable and available. For
general purposes and public convenience the
Farnam street site is the one every time.
NJ. Hellman-I am strongly in favor of the
Farnam street site, and | consider it an out
rage to attempt to locate 1T ywher else,
since this site has once been duly authorized
by the voting populacc of this city. 1t is the
most convenient location that is available.
Herman kountze-l am in favor Of the
present site on Farnam slreet. | believe
thnrn / q an pln Ann Fa. "a 1r,.ll,.. l..--
enough to answer the purposes for many
years to come. The city having once pur-
chased the site for this purpose, and having
already expended n large sum of money, |
deem it unfair to remove the location. This
location was not my first choice, but now |
am strongly in favor of it.
Max Meyer-Theo only proper place for the
city hall is Farnam street. The money spent
in the foundation should not be thrown
away by building another hall elsewhere.
The Farnam street site will be large enough
for this city for the next one hundred years.
1t would be as large as that in New York
City hall to-day. Besides this, we want an
open space in the city, and no other is as
good for that purpose as Jefferson Square.
Again, by moving the city hall from Farnam
street, we break faith with persons who have
built in that vicinity.
james Stephenson-I am IN favor Of the
+ arnam street site by all odds and will fight
the jefferson square crowd. Jefferson SQUARE
should be beautiful and kept as a park, and
If we had intelligent gentlemen instead of
lunkheads in the council, it would be fixed
up as a park. A city hall on Jefferson square
would cost too much. 1t would have to have
four faces instead of the two which the Far
nam street site requires. The F'arnam street
site is more central. If, as the kickers
say, there is not room enough there, then
buy the court house and use it for a city
hall, as 1 understand it Is for sale.
j. IL. Mlllard-Either site actually pleases
me. It's like taking two nDiSDnS hOth
obnoxious. | rather prefer Jefferson square
because | think it would be more beneficial
to the city. But | really don't want to be
mixed up in the matter. Don't know exactly
how | shall vote.
George E. Barker-I lean towards Jeffer-
son square. Our Interests are divided, and
| have thought all along that carrying the
city over the hills to the west would involve
too much cost to the city. However, l would
like to see improvements made on the old
site, as | consider the foundation sufficiently
strong to bear any structure.
Louis Bradford favor the old site, as it
is near the county building. The city owns
the lot and has expended a large sum of
money already. Jefferson square could be
converted into a beautiful and useful park
for the city.
Hugh c. Clark favor the old site for
the reasons that it has voted on once, pro-
visions have been made for the building and
the grounds are ample for all the needs of
the city for thirty years.
A. Rosewater-I favor the Farnam street
site because it has been already selected by
the council and the people. The foundations
are already finished and $40, 600 has been
spent on the building. Not only is the Far
nam street site the more central place, but it
is convenient to the iconrt house, and people
having business that calls them to both places
will find it vastly more convenient than
walking up to Jefferson square. The Jeffer-
son Squaresite would require
piling for the foundations at a
great expense. If the building Is to be q
one, the Farnam street site is far
superior as it is 1876 feet higher than the other
site, and the new building can be seen from
all parts.o of the city. The Jefferson square
building would require four faces instead of
the two which the present one requires and
this would make the cost nearly 80 per cent
higher. If the Jefferson square site should
unfortunately be chosen, Omaha would be
the only city in the United States that places
any city or public building in close proximity
to "A lot of railroad switches and grounds
used for railroad purposes. If the people
must destroy Jefferson square for park pur-
poses, let them use it for a union depot site
for which it is much better fitted than for a
city hall.