The record-union., 1893-12-14
TRUE SUBDIVISION.

The Bakersfield Californian says in re-
marking upon the proposed and ordered
subdivision Of the Crocker Huffman tract
near Merced, that it is not new in fact,
that it is error to suppose that mere sub
division is going to bring prosperity. 1t
further says:
AS plain matter of fact. there is hardly
locality from one end OF the state to the other
where subdivisions OF land in any sized tract
may not be obtained on any kind OF terms.
This is true OF all the southern, ali the San
Joaquin and most of the sacramento Valley
counties. What is wanted is not more sub
divisions, but people 10 buy and settle on
those already made. All this time that Mer-
ced is said TO have been kept back, there have
been abundance OF small tracts offered for
sale there without takers. 1t is not more sub
divisions that are wanted, but people to set
tie on them.
It will probably be conceded by our
contemporary that the RECORD UNION
knows what it is talking about when it
speaks upon this matter, since no journal
has so diligently studied and analyzed
the land monopoly question, and all the
physical and financial facts related to it,
as the RECORD UNION.
Some months age we took pains to
prove, not assert merely, that as a matter
of fact in the Sacramento and other val
lies the process of general subdivision has
not been going on. On the contrary, it
was demonstrated by official quotations
from the records that the aggregation of
tracts in single holdings has been on the
increase; that small farms have been
bought up and absorbed into large land
holdings that as a matter of history
homes have been demolished and their
sites fairly sown to salt, that the great
acreage possessions of land monopolists
might be further swelIed. So much, then,
for the alleged tendency to subdivision
referred to by our Kern contemporary
Next we are told that any quantity of
small tracts have been held for sale to
homeseekers whenever they presented,
and on any kind of terms. AS to this we
should prefer proof to the assertion, of
even so reputable an authority as our
contemporary. We apprehend that the
truth in San Joaquin Valley is, what it
has been and is in the Sacramento Val
ley, that all lands held out for sale in
small tracts Save in a few instances
where a systematic scheme has been car
ried out to enable the desiring purchaser
to take on terms that give him time to
make the purchase money out of the soip
have been held at too high prices, and at
least part cash, and without any contem-
pIation whatever of the broad and farsee-
ing kind, that looks to the upbuilding
of strong, self-supporting communities
that all other conditions may be thereby
bettered and conserved.
We repeat, for emphasis, in nine
cases out Of ten the private offerings
of small tracts have been upon schedules
of prices rating altogether too high. a
matter so notorious that almost the entire
interior press has made the fact the text
of comment for some years.
It is perfectly true, as our contemporary
well says, that what we want in Califor-
MIA is more people to take small tracts.
but it is equally true that as q rule our
method of offering small tracts has been
adverse to the coming of the very people
we wish to become takers of small farms.
Now. as we understand it, the subdi-
vision of the Crocker-Hufman tract pro-
ceeds upon the plan of affording the
seeker, who is such for the purpose OF
home building, and not for speculation,
the opportunity to make out of the soil
the purchase price, as well as his mean
time living, and that to such end the
water use, so essential in the San Joa-
quin Valley to success, is assured to the
home taker. It is not necessary to en-
large upon the subject further to show
our contemporary that, save here and
there a rare instance, there has been no
true subdivision of large tracts, and no
true invitation to home builders to come
in and erect communities. strong and as
sured in reasonable certainty Of success.