Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-11-18
SIDEWALK INSTRUCTIONS.

Trustee Mclaughlin is worthy of the
support and commentator of the people
in his determination to remove quasi-per-
manent distractions from the sidewalks,
Any effort to thwart the action the Trus-
tee will take in this matter that is in line
with his duty will be opposed to the best
interests of the community. In no well
regulated municipality is it permitted that
the walk-ways reserved for common use Of
the people shall be shorn of their width by
such distractions.
The owner of property along which
walk-ways run has not a scintilla of title
to the realty in the walk-way. He has nc
more right to rent out privileges beyond
the metes and bounds called for by his
deed, than he has to derive revenue from
leases he might make for use of the public
squares. Yet there are citizens owning
property who rent to others the fright" tt
maintain bootblack stands, fruit booths and
chop-houses upon the sidewalks. If il
is replied that the owner of the property
pays for the construction of the sidewalk
and therefore may exercise quasi owner
ship over 1t, it may well be replied that he
also pays for paving the street, and there
fore has a right to lease out the public
highway for private uses. The people
themselves established the system of assess
ing the cost of street work and sidewalk
construction against the contiguous prop
erty. We have always believed that a
wiser system would be one making all
such work general public cost, precisely as
is street lightning, street sprinkling, street
repairs, policing of the city, ETC.
But these business booths erected upon
the sidewalks are nuisances. They i'm
pede the free passage of pedestrians; they
are unsightly; they are in the worst posi-
bic taste, and permitting them to remain
confesses a title in the owner OF contigu-
Gus property that does not and should moi
exist. In many instances these stands and
other quasi-permanent distractions, when
their customers are in front of them, really
occupy half or more than half of the walk
way. If a restaurant and a bootblack
stand may be set up on the sidewalk, why
not butcher shop, fat-trying establish
ment, tin shop, fish stall, or even the
noisy business of a boilermaker? The
fright of the property-owner is fully as
great in one of these cases as in another.
The Board of Trustees properly passed
recent ordinance prohibiting these OBJ
structions. 1t is the law, and Street Com
missioner Mclaughlin in proposing to en-
force it is doing his duty and should have
the backing that sympathy and common
dation give. If, as some claim, it is bad
law, then the surest and speediest way to
secure its repeal is to enforce it rigidly.
But it is wise provision and therefore
should be carried out and made effective.
1t does not, in any respect, interfere with
any mans business; it puts all on an equal
ity, on the contrary, and conseryes bust
ness by making the streets and walks more
desirable for pedestrians; it contributes
to the general good by the improved APP
pearance of the streets, and the removal of
objects that are nuisances to a great ma
iority of the people and offenses to good
taste.