Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-05-01
GOOD STREETS. OR SEWERS {?
A CITIZEN WHO THINKS THE LATTER
THE MORE NECESSARY.
But He Would Have Both, If the Tax
payers Can See Their Way Clear
to Pay for them.

-~@>C>~~
street-grading question, would like to
make some suggestions. We are all inter
ested, more or less in the condition of the
streets. If the Improvements contemplated
are made, the merchants and business men
of the city will reap great benefits from the
increased trade brought them. As shown
by one of their. own number, it will add
many thousands of dollars annually to
their profits. Then, also, those wealthy
and medium we'll do gentlemen and
ladies of our city, with their children and
friends. when they take their daily drives
in their fine carriages and phaetons, instead
Of dragging them through bog and mire
and chuckholes, will have delightfully."-
smooth and even driveways, which, besides
affording the comfort and pleasure of such
drives, will save much expense in the line
of repairs, painting. ETC.. of their carriages.
Even the poor workingmen will, to some
degree. be benefited, for what man among
them would not take pride in the appear
ance of the city with such streets. 1t is
true he would derive no profit from the
improvement, as the merchant would, nor
"ouiu AS opJoy Aauiu6 oVcf TIC pdNeucut,
not being able to keep horse, or even hire
one; but the improvement would enhapc,
the value of his little cottage home (this,
however, would increase his taxes little),
and save him from the din and rattle of
the noisy street. and he could enjoy seeing
his wealthier neighbors riding over such
nice, smooth pavement without jar or rat
tie to disturb his meditations.
Now, to be candid it seems to me that it
is far from just and equitable that the
thousands of poor workingmen who would
derive very little profit from street improve
ment, and who do not use the streets for
pleasure at all, should be assessed at the
same rate as those who, through the i'm
provement, add SO many dollars TO their
incomes, and those who are able to secure
the enjoyment it affords other than that of
its appearance.
Let Us suppose the city decides to issue
bonds for 100000 to be applied TO paying
one-fourth of the expense, as proposed, and
suppose the cost to be 81 per front foot.
Now, Smith and Jones are neighbors, each
owning a 40-foot lot, and each will be
assessed exactly the same $500 for paving
the street, the city paying the other $40
Smith has $1,000 house on his lot, and
Jones has 4,0O0-h house on his, with sta
BILE for his carriage and pair in the rear.
SAhith 40 CoiuuiOu ldoOIcT, earning SOUU
per year. Jones is in the dry goods bust
ness, making Sc 600 per year. Smith never
enjoys ride on the pavement for he has
no horse, while Jones rides out every ever
ing with his family. Smiths wages re-
main the same after as before the improve
ment. Jones business brings him greatly
increased Income.
Does it look right that these two men
should be assessed equally for this i'm.
provement ? | would say let those who
reap the financial gains pay far greater
rate OF assessment than those who are ben
fitted only by the appearance of the city,
and let those who enjoy the pleasure but
derive no profit pay medium rate.
The argument that the improvement en-
hances the value of property is not appli.
cable to the workingman, unless he is a
wealthy workingman, with number of
city lots for sale, on which he is speculat-
ing. The man who is toiling day after
day, month after month, year after year,
to clear his little home from heavy mort
gage, certainly cannot be expected to be
very enthusiastic about laying pavement
in front of it for his wealthy neighbors to
enjoy and the merchants to profit by.
Yet the poor man is not so envious that
he would grudge the payment of a fair as
sessment in order that his neighbors may
ehJoy anu piout ny tHe Improvement, anu
he is willing to admit that he also would
be benefited, more perhaps than would first
appear, for everything that is delivered at
his home for his consumption must be
carted there over the streets, and it is very
clear that this carting will be less costly
over paved streets than through mud and
mire. Undoubtedly there are extremely
lew VINO would oppose street improvement
II the expense were equitably adjusted &C.
cording to wealth and the benefits derived
This, it may be argued, would be an intri-
cate adjustment to make. but it seems to me
that nothing more obtruse than problem
in general average would be encountered.
But suppose it would involve the higher
mathematics, calculus, least squares, or even
some of the nicer, finer. hair-splitting
sciences, 1 think Sacramento can produce
scholars who are equal to the emergency.
The matter could easily enough be adj
lusted, ii we want to do it, but if we don't
1t will be very hard to see through. There
are none SO blind as those who do not
want to see.
While the paving of the streets is most
desirable, there is another improvement
OF vastly more importance, which / would
like to see made at the same time-or
rather before the streets are paved. il order
that they will not have to be dug up again.
An efficient sewerage system is badly
III L