Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1890-03-21
ABOUT KEEPING THE STREETS
CLEAN.

THERE is in existence n very
sllutary ordinance to prevent the
accumulation Of extraneous rubbish
on the streets and sidewalks Of this
city. 1t makes it an oIense for any
person to dump or place substances
that would naturally come under
that head upon the public thorough
fares. The following is quoted from
section 81:
ssNo person owning. occupying or
having control Of any premises. shall,
after reasonable notice by the city
marshal or any police officer, suffer to
be or remain in front thereof, upon
the sidewalk or the half Of the street
next to such premises: First-Any
broken ware, glass, filth, rubbish,
refuse matter, garbage, ashes, tin cans,
or other like substances"
At the session of the City Council
held last Tuesday a proposition was
made to insert among the offensive
materials enumerated, "mud, snow,
or ice" There did not appear to be
any decided opposition to the offered
amendment to the ordinance, except
from Councilman Hall, who seemed
to be struck with its incongruity.
The subject was laid over till next
Tuesday.
IL is necessary that the streets and
sidewalks be kept clear Of obstruc-
tons and all offensive substances,
but the city fathers should pause
before passing such an amendment
as the one now considered. 1t is
doubtful whether the city can ex-
tend the requirement in relation to
clearing away "mud, snow and
ice'' beyond the outer edge Of the
sidewalk. The streets are the prop
erty Of the corporation, and it is the
duty of the latter to keep them in re-
pair, hence the superyisorship Of
public thoroughfares.
The amendment is in the nature
Of superauous legislation, because it
would be imperative. Suppose a
depression exists in a street; il fills
with water, which freezes to thick
ness Of two or three inches; teams
come along and break it up, making
an unsightly accumulation Of ice,
will it be contended that it is the
duty Of abutters TO remove il? II
50 where shall they dump it? Ger
tainly not on the streets, for that is
against the ordinance that would re
quire its removal. Should they cart
it into their own lots? Hardly.
In cities where property owners
are compelled to keep the sidewalks
clear Of snow, they are allowed to
pile it by the edge Of the street. This
would not only be a contrlveation OF
the proposed amendment but the
parties would he required TO remove
what was on the street as well. They
would thus have something white
on their hands, if not "white ele
phant." Again, where would they
put it, snow being an awkward sub
stance to stow away in cellars, espe-
cially if person doesn't happen to
have a cellar.
The "mud'' part OF the amend
ment would be a problem equally
difficult of solution. In fact it is
not quite as soluble as snow. In
deed, in some cases that substance
constitutes, in damp seasons, the
chief, if not only ingredient Of the
thoroughfares. As a result its re-
moval by the abutters would
be going a long way toward 4 trans
position Of the streets. Besides there
being no place provided to dump
the upper layer Of the avenues in
the softer portion Of our city, the
residents would dislike their dwell
ings to be on an elevation too great
above the grade Of the streets.
The Council will DO well to pause
before concluding to pass this anti
mud-snoW-and-iee amendment.