Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-12-22
GOOD SIDEWA LKS.
The Question Is Again Being Agi-
tated in Norfolk.
Tho Paving Ordinnn 80 nnd thc a .i.
GRITTY itconfer.-Tho c.sy Attorney
Aw"it. the Doc,.ton OF Juaso
Prontis. OF city cironit Court.

The agitation of the question OF good
sidewalks has begun again. The cues
ton Is becoming livelier every day,
though city officials say 1t has never
died out completely since it was agi-
tated in 1885, At that time large
number of the most prominent citizens
of Norfolk signed a petition to the
Councils asking that the city pave and
keep in repair the sidewalks, at its own
expense. instead of requiring lot own
ers to individually pave in front OF their
property. The present ordinance, un-
der fire in the Circuit Court as TO it's
validity, Is not enforced with any de-
gree OF strictness, and many maintain
that 1t cannot be enforced, and that the
city Will never have good sidewalks un-
I'll they are constructed by the city out
of the general tax fund, or special tax
is levied for that purpose.
THE PAVING ORDINANCE.
The ordinance is as follows:
The owner. or occupant, of any
house or lot fronting on any street
shall, at his own expense, or at the
charge of his landlord, keep in good re-
pair, with good paving brick or stone
BIS, so much of the sidewalk as shall
front the building and lot of ground be-
longing to him or III his possession.
The inspector OF streets Shall direct
such repairs to be made whenever ne
ccssary, and il any such owner, or oc-
cupant, shall fail to make such repairs,
after having received ten days notice
so to do, the person so falling shall pay
II fine of So for each day, and after the
expiration of ten days, IL the repaire
shall not have been made by the owner,
or occupant, it shall be the duty Of the
inspector to cause the-.repairs to be
made, on account of such owner. or oc-
cupant. and forthwith collect from the
person liable the cost of such repairs
and pay the amount to the person who
did the work. and the inspector Of
streets is empowered to collect the said
amount by distraint, or by warrant in
the name of the city,
STREET INSPECTORS DISCRETION
This is sweeping enough, but it was
never expected that IL would be carried
out literally, It seems. There are hun
drcds of lots, many of which are in
the central portion of the city, in front
of which there is no sidewalk pavement.
The enforcement of the ordinance
quoted above is left entirely to the
Street Inspector. and he uses his own
discretion as 10 what sidewalks need
repairing and where pavementS should
be put down.
I'll al 1 oIt1NI%1 . 1AN 1 LIN
The validity of the ordinance having
been questioned, it is now the intention
of the City Attorney to determine,
once for all, whether or not the law is
valid. Therefore, as soon as Judge
Prentis renders a decision in the test
case now before him. 1t is probable
that the case will be carried to the
Court of AppealsSno matter which side
wins in the lower courts. But even if
the ordinance is finally upheld there is
a probability that an effort will be
made to rep raj 1t and enact in its stead
a law providing that hereafter the city
shall lay and keep in repair all side
walks.
THE 1896 ORDINANCE.
The ordinance before the Councils in
1896 required that the owner of n lot
bear half the original expense OF laying
the pavement in front of his property.
and that the city bear the other half
and keep it In repair thereafter
1t was estimated at that time that
such an ordinance would necessitate a
tax of cents on 500 of property. The
proposition was In the hands Of The
FINANCE Committee when the Council
mems term expired, and the new Coun-
ellis never took the matter up.