The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-01-09

is beyond my power of comp ehension.
IT would be Just as right. and indeed
much more proper, to compel the people !
that live in the outer part of town to
pay for paFements recently laid down
on Main street and adjoining portions
Of the paving district.
Cases could be multiplied that would
illustrate this matter We will take
for instance one A man owns a piece
OF property for his residence, whatever
IL may be, * would cost about $40 a
year in local assessments per front foot,
but because it Happens to be more
valuable this his neighbors who i've a
H7lse away in much finer houses he
must not only pay SO for his own light.
puE pay $50 for may be twenty or thirty
other people who are equally benefited
With him and possibly far better off.
In conclusion let me say that the city
council, SO far as I know, have not vet
decided to light by the front foot, but
1 'Deiieye they viii make a local assess
ment, and whether in accordance with
mat Plan or estimating the benefits
20 pc received, has not yet been con-
cinded. There is one idea that did not
occur to me until your paper mentioned
it. and this is by assessing ACCORDING
To- the benefits derived we might Be
enabled to reach the railroads. That
might be a considerations. Even thai
mas its drawbacks, for probably IL
would be claimed by the railroad COM
pany, and possibly true, they care NOT
"nether the streets are lighted or not.
Yours respectfully,
CITIZEN.
Inc foregoing is given space in these
columns because it comes from a gen
fleman Of this city, whom all highly
esteem for his personal good Qualities
and his professional ability and good
Judgment. But it, becomes necessary
with its publication to attach some
comments.
w rear the gentleman has not care
fully read the editorial which he att
tempts to criticise. If he will look at
| it again he will fail to discover in it
any advice. either fatherly or other
wise, to the city council. That body Is
not asked to ssdesist'' from anything.
If he is as loose in his reading of the
Flaw as in perusing Sundays editorial
on the subject he treats of-there was
none ON Monday, the 7th inst.-we fear
he viii not be able to make out a very
good case
All that the gentleman has to say
about the chartered powers of the city
council, and more, has already been
published in the editorial columns of
The Herald, and set forth in greater
detail than he gives. There is no need.
then, to discuss that part of the ques-
ton.
The gentleman is entitled to his view
| OF the fairness of the front footage
proposition, but that is not shared by
THE majority of the people who will be
affected by it. They have an equal
right to their opinion. and that has
been voiced by The Herald. This he
taeitly admits, but intimates that they
take this view because it favors their
financial interests. Would it be too
much to return the compliment and
ask, is it not the financial interests
of the wealthy property-owners that
causes them to favor the front footage
proposition? It's a poorTule that only
works one way.
He says he cannot see s'by what JUS
nish light for another mans premises
or in the street in front of him" Mel
Their can We, and that is one thing we
object to. If there is any furnishing
of light for a mans premises why
should the owner of a piece of property
very great in front footage but very
little in value, because of location and
the smallness of the house upon it or
the absence Of any house, be compelled
to pay three or four times as much as
the owner of a, very valuable business
house or block with very small front
footage? Would not this be a case of
requiring one man to furnish light for
another mans premises, or in the
street in front of him.? We think So
and ask our friend to apply his own
rule.
But, singular7to say, our objector
goes on to demolish his own argument
by contending that the benefits of the
street lamps do not accrue to the
premises, and establishes just what we
have contendeds for That is. it is a.
public benefit which comes from the
street lighting much more than a pri-
vate benefit. What follows, then, by
fair reasoning? Is it not that the ex-
pense of this public benefit should come
out Of the public funds, as provided
for in the charter, at least equally
with the power to make a local assess
ment?
Here is another point, actually ellie
Iited by our friends objection, which
goes to indicate that the general fund
or tax and not local assessment should
pay for street lighting. He shows the
benefits to the general public from the
street lighting, in the travel by foot
and wagon after 9 o'clock at night"
| Does he mean 10 say that people who
live in the lighting district on streets
away from the central parts of town
are more benefited by that than are
the storekeepers and owners of bust
ness blocks and offices?
Take the people who live in the
outer edges of the city, the people who
travel to or from home to the central
parts of town by vehicle. Although
| they do not live in the lighting dis
trict proposed, are they not benefited
by the street lighting even more than
many people who reside within its lin
| its? In their whole Gravel by foot or
wagon" do they not receive as much
or more benefit from street lighting
! than those who will have to pay the
bulk of the front footage tax? And
yet they will not be required to pay a
cent for that benefit. Does he call that
! parity of justice"?.