The Black Hills union. [volume] (Rapid City, Pennington County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1889-1904, 1895-07-19

up by this eastern syndicate. the pews-
papers and business men of that place
have been singing a different song. They
have been compelled to pay high rents,
repair the buildings at their own ex-
pense, and turn the grindstone while the
syndicate sharpened their income by Sc
curing the purchase price from their ten
ants. The Pioneer OF yesterday, in
speaking OF some of their citizens erect
ing business buildings, has the following:
The time has passed when old frame
shacks will command high rents. Rent
ers want good buildings. We are no
longer q mining camp, and the crude
buildings OF the seventies no longer find
occupants. Several years ago a number
OF the merchants were foolish enough to
themselves at the mercy of grasping
landlords, to whom they have repaid
the purchase price in rents. Now they
are looking for locations on which to
build
"No town owned by eastern investors
who secure the choicest business prop
erty has ever been benefited by such in
yestments, as it has always been the rule
that this class of people Is not OF the
stripe that builds up a city. Take for
instance here in Rapid City. Look
around and see how many Of the fine
brick blocks were built by eastern men.
Here in Rapid City the best business To-
caJlons have been had and improved by
our citizens. 1t has been the history Of
all towns, that the real builders of cities
have been the residents of the city, but
the Spectators who invest their money
are generally the gamers bv the labors
of those who built the city. It can be
truly said that those investors are q
curse to any town that has an ambition
to take an important place in the COM
nercial world, as they do not contribute
to advance the interests OF the commu-
nifty or their property holdings IN the
place. So long as their property contin-
ues to produce handsome percentage on
the investment without an outlay of an
additional dollar, they are satisfied.
Rapid City in one respect is much differ
emit from Deadwood; here the business
property is owned by Dur own citizens,
who are willing to make an effort to
build buildings equal to the demands OF
the CITY,"
The writer's in both Pioneer and Jour-
nal do not seem to have grasped the
whole truth in relation to the subject,
but simply caught glimpses OF it through
the darkness. If they saw more it was
not brought out.
What Is the foundation for the objec-
ton to selling town lots to eastern spec.
ulators, and why does not the same
objection apply to Investments in other
forms Of property, such as machinery,
cattle, buildings, or anything that Is
produced BY labor? Reader, if you will
follow up the distinction l will give YOU
it will open up a new field of thought
to you and demonstrate the difference IN
the ownership Of land and the owner
ship Of the products of labor. Any
ierm fof property which ls directly or
ipta.< ktetIy the product Of human labor
au kS1Sduplicated-increased-by labor.
MtS,yysy vt OF land can be duplicated or
.R j; consequently he who own a
piece OF land has q monopoly, and as
population increases and the demand for
land increases, he can command a higher
and higher price for its use. Land or
natural opportunities Is the only thing
that permanently raises in value with
increasing population. But it is impos-
sible for q permanent monopoly to exist
in the products Of human labor, for the
reaso that as the demand increases the
supply also increases, and the price con-
tlnues at the cost line of production. and
does not permanently 60 above it. But
the demand for land increases with pop
ulation, and the supply remains one
thing, thus land goes up IN price; the
owners reap the increased price, and
why? Is not this increased value-or
all value, in fact-the result of the peo-
pie as a whole, and not the individuals
who W the land? Do you not here
see a distinction between the value OF
the products OF labor, which Is the re-
suit OF the individual exertion, and the
value of land, which is the price of mo-
nopoly and not the result of labor?
Land value is what labor must pay to
the speculator before he can begin pro-
ducllg wealth.
I do not believe an eastern speculator
is any worse than a resident speculator;
they both take the value OF land which
the community by it's laborand industry
creates and justly belongs to 1T, for their