The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-12-12
AS TO GOOD ROADS.
Criticism Of the Plan Proposed by the Legis-
latiye Committee of the Late Congress

To the Editor OF the Indianapolis Journal
have taken q deep interest in the road
convention, having given poor roads con-
siderable study. / do not agree to the re-
port of the Legislative committee. and am
sorry to ~criticise it How good roads are
to be paid for is more important than how
they are to be built. Ny observation
teaches me that the prevailing cause Of
poor roads in this country is the poor way
of paying for them. Township roads would
be much better at less cost but for the
odi0us and unjust system of paying for
them. This Is true in towns and cities as
well. We made little progress In cities or
the second aud third class in street-build-
ing until we changed the method of pay
ment from out of . general iund 10 an AS
q This committee recon-
mends the abandoned plan OF twenty
years or more ago. When improve
ments are made q net benefit re-
suits to adjoining property:. under
the general-fund plan this benefit is con-
ferred without cost TO the parties benefited
and q corresponding burden placed upon
other forms or wealth. Under tbs general
fund plan corruption. favoritism. pIohi-
Racy and waste followed. Every ones busi-
ness was no ones business. and taxes soon
became SO burdensome as to cripple the
prosperity of the community. Improve
ments came on slowly and were inditler-
emily done. This committee recommends
u IcluIu u tux6 pldus II HIiuLlUlc VI " "
lec:ing a road fund from all taxable prop
erty Is vicious in the extreme, can only re-
suit in no roads being built and end our
present system Of street improvements un-
der the Barrett law. Anderson this year
spends goo, 600 for streets and sewers-ten
times as much as we get from city taxes.
Under the present plan We can spend az
much each year, Tor the property benefited
hears the burden. and the value created
by the new work exceeds the cost.
Were we to endeavor TO pay for these
things as the committee proposes we would
have owls hooting In our ruined court
house tower as q monument TO our stupid
ity, for no community can endure taxes
upon its wealth at the rate OF 100000 per
year, and have that sum conferred gratui-
fousIy UPON landowners who have new ad-
ditions or farms becoming valuable.
The most important thing In good roads
10 how they are to be paid for. With q
good law good will result in all things.
The only plan that can produce results 10
the plan on which streets are built. The
cost of the improved road should be borne
by the lands benefited. Bonds should be-
issued for each specific Improvement. from
three to ak years, at the option OF the road
commissioner, depending on the cost. The
reason for borrowing money to pay for inn
pr0vements is that it gives the Improvement
time to get in it's work and help pay tor
itself, which IL usually does. and when the
assessments fall due they are more easily
paid than ordinary taxes, and surely less
complaingly, which 10 of some importance.
Tue road law should be animate with the
idea that roads are public improvements
and for the use and benefit of the public,
and landowners are no more concerned
than others. Landowners should be re-
Quired to pay. because. In consequence OF
buIlding them, their property is enhanced
In value. When landowners are protected
from unjust assessment their claim for
recognition ends No petition should be
required, and no obstruction from land
owners should be permitted. Ii Is very
important that road commissioners have
full power to have roads built without OBJ
%struction from landowners. whose view OF
questions OF this kind are obstructed By the
fences around their farms. With such q
law little else would be necessary, for then
good roads would spring mp nil over the
State as good streets have under the Bar
rett law. The argument that IN Europe
roads are built from general funds viii not
apply here. as city In provemeDts are there
so made. while here that plan has been the
mother of corruption and waste. The reason.
l think, is the difference in property val.
mes. In Europe no middle class was ever suf-
fered TO grow. and there was none to ex-
plot by unjust taxes. Here the middle
class is the basic class. and others rise and
fall from IE. and our material prosperity
depends largely upon the effect OK taxes up.
on this class.
Since good roads cannot be he'd except
with good drainage. o new ditch law IL
necessary. Here. also. the principle OF the
public good should be uppermost and land
owners prevented from having each other
and obstructing the improvements. Good
roads followed q good ditch law In ohio aft
or 1880 with no other apparent canee. With
these laws good roads become q question Of
executive ability. and with freedom among
civil engineers results wolld be certain 10
be good. The difference in wealth. resources
ana necessities OF different parts Of the
state would soon develop the
best plan. do not favor
rigid civil engineering disc pli6e
as in Europe. We have developed the
greatest public works in the world and
have produced the most eminent civil en-
gineers with perfect freedom of COMPETE
tion- The road commissioners should have
power TO employ any competent civil en-
gineer for any specific Improvement. who
should give bond. This plan would
stimulate competitor and we would get the
best result. After the roads are completed
they should be under the supervision of -
county superintendent. and an ample fund
should be provided for their O instant care.
The engineer should have enough pay TO
command services worth having aud shousG
BIS allowed his expenses.
Henry RAwIE
ANDERSON. Ind. Dee. :