The record-union., 1899-01-27
Weather Forecast.
AN OBSTRUCTION TO STREET I'M
PROVEMENT.

AN OBSIRUCIlON~ 10 STREEI I'M
PROVEMENT.
There is need for legislation, and at
once, to remove from the path of pro-
gress an obstacle that has recently
reared its head and promises to stay
the hand of betterment in all the mu-
inequalities of the State.
Under the law regarding street inn
provement in cities, notice of intention
must be given, due posting had, etc. If
for majority of the feet along the
line of the proposed Improvement
through the ownership thereof, there is
fled remonstrance, the proposed
work is stayed for six months.
Heretofore it has been held that at
the end of the six months the govern
ing body of the municipality could take
up the matter just where it had been
checked by the protest, and go on with
the needed improvement. But now
comes the Supreme Court in the case
of the City Improvement Company VS..
Babcock, appealed from Judge Sewalls
department of the Superior Court Of
end of the six months the proceedings
must be re-inftiated, and that remon-
strants may again protest and again
stay the work.
The gist of it is simply this-as long
as protests sufficient are made. no
street can be improved, no matter how
deplorable its condition. Thus a single
block Of a street in line of improved
highway may lie for years, a pest, a
mud hole and nuisance, and the
power of the city is paralyzed to remedy
the condition.
We have such cases in this city. In
one instance much Travelled street in
the business section. for it's entire
ength north from R street, save
one block, in the midst of
the. city. is improved; part of it is BIZ
tuminized, part graveled and one block
cobbled. The one unimproved block is
a sink hole, low flat, a water catcher,
a slough of despond and cause of re-
proach on the part of all visitors. When
ever the Trustees move to have the
street put into decent condition the
property owners. all landlords, we be-
lieye, protest. and that under the recent
decision Is the end of the matter.
However. whatever defense the land
lords may have in that case. which Is
instanced only to emphasize the neces-
sity for action, since the decision in
the Babcock case, legislation becomes
absolutely necessary to remove the OBJ
stacle to progress. There should be a
limitation of time to the stay by pro-
test. What that limit should be is a
matter to be disposed of as justice COM
mands
But the Hmitless privilege to prevent
street Improvement should be done
away with. Unless it is, growing cities
may as well cease attempts to improve.
They will be unable to move forward
by SO much as a foot. except as few
silurians or disgruntled men may be SO
gracious as to permit.
Under the decision the majority Of
front foot owners in single block can
snap their fingers at whole city, and
dictate all manner of terms as to ma
terials, style, character OF work, price
of their gracious consent, and so on as
essentials precedent to permission that
the public highway may be made pass
able.
1t is to be hoped that the Legislature
will take this matter up at once, and as
trustees for all the people act as
Justice and the spirit Of progress de-
mands- II no one member feels 1t to be
his duty to inaugurate legislation by
preparing a bill. an appropriate stand
ing committee should take hold Of the
subject and initiate the necessary leg
isls-tion of its own motion.