The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-01-09
SOMETHING on THE OTHER SIDE.
Salt Lake CITY. Jan. s. 1895.

To the Editor of The Herald:
Dear Sir:-I notice in your paper OF
yesterday an editorial on the question of
lighting the city, and I'm a, sort of
fatherly manner warning the city coun-
ell to desist from what you deem TO be
"a very Illegal proposition. Possibly
this is not just the language of your
article, but the above to my memory,
it not being now before me, is about its
purport; and you also take the ground
that the assessment on the property
holders on the front foot for lighting
the streets would be unfair if not I'M
lawful.
Permit me to say that the charter
of Salt Lake city, as amended January
IA, 1865, and again by the general act
amending charters of cities approved
March 5, 1888, specially provide for and
confer upon the city council of Salt
Lake city the power to levy local as
sessments for the purpose of lighting
the city either by assessing the property
by the front foot or by assessment &C
cording to the benefit derived The
question as to whether it shall be done
by assessment on the front foot or upon
the property to be benefited thereby
has not yet been fully determined by
the council
will confess in my own judgment
| think the fairer way is by the front
foot, but of this there may be, and no
doubt are, contrary opinions. It is
very easy to argue and convince the
pubic, especially a majority of them,
that it is the fairest way to light the
city by general assessment. This [ say
with some regret that it is easy TO con-
vince the general public, for the simple
reason that most people can be easily
convinced OF a thing that favors their
financial interest, but by what parity
OF justice one man can be REQUIRED 10
furnish light for another mans pre-
misses, or in the street in front of him,
Is something l am unable to understand.
The results of street lighting are in
/, their nature. directly local, as near at
least as any improvement is or can be.
But 1t is urged by you in your article
that the people who own property in
the business part of the city receive the
greater benefits from lighting. Pos
slbly this statement might admit of
some doubt. Lighting the streets, as a
matter Of fact, is not generally deemed
as important to the business portion
OF the town as it is to the residence
portion. The business blocks of Main
street and other places of like charac-
ter, the shops, banks and stores. close at
ABOUT $50 every evening of the week
except Saturday, and the people who
own these properties care but little
whether the street is lighted in front
OF them or not. Whereas people who
ilVe lar away from the business dis
trlcts are those who most require an
demand street lighting, aud this for
obvious reasons. 1 will venture to saw
that after o'clock in the evening that
there IS more travel both by foot and
Wagon, in cars and out, to and from
residences on South Temple ana First
and Second South streets than thare
is on the same number of blocks in tha
business part Of town. And of course
this is the time when street lighting Il
important.
There is no doubt but there are
isolated cases where il will fan osr6
on the people TO light by the front foot
out THIS Will always be SO in all sort OF
taxation. In paving the streets DeonIe
are taxed by the front foot, and MANY
men who never owned a horse ar car
rage in their lives are compelled to nav
a large sum of money to pave the street
IN mont OF their property for other peo-
PIE to drive over. 1t may be claimed
ana VIII be, that paving benefits the
property. answer, so does lighting,
ana equally as important in pronortiop
to the case.
The method that You would advocate
amounts to this. Say it will COST tbe
citizens about 5 cents per front foot '- te
light the streets as they are now
lighted. If it is done by Valuation NJ
the property. taking the assessment roll
Tor the values to be ascertained, the
Groesbeck block on the corner of Eos,
Temple and Second South would he re'
quired to pay, l viii say at q, roueh
guess, about 500 year. Five doiiare
of this would be to light their propertv
and the other $95 would be to lieh,
other mems property that live in re-.
moter parts of the town. The owne,
Of this or like property, L presume, care
not for the lights, they have no use
for them, and if consulted probably
would not even pay for one, far less
would they agree to pay for twenty.
Now what justice there is in makine
the owner of valuable piece of pro.
perty not only pay for lighting his OWL
property but pay for some one else's