Evening star., 1902-08-26
Wornout Sidewalks in Washington.
To the Editor of The Evening Star:

Wornout Sidewalks in Washington.
| To the Editor of The Evening Star:
You have given me space on several oc-
I casions to protest against what l bel eve to
| be very unwise rule adopted by the board
| of Commissioners which results in main
| tanning in the most frequented portions of
| the city worn-out, rough and uneven side
/ walks for periods of ten or fifteen years
| after they should have been replaced. This
Objectionable rule is the requirement that
| majority of the owners of the abutting
property shall request the Improvement as
| a condition precedent. AS it appears at
majority of the owners in the central por-
tion of the city are not suffici ntIy inter-
| ested to make the request the public is con-
| demned to use the old walks or as It
mostly does, take to the streets with the
horses. And in the meantime the m ney
available for the Districts share Of such
| improvements is expended in the more
mote localities, where the owners are pub
| lie spirited or enterprising, and ask for
new walks and granite curb.
To this rule are We. Therefore, indS bted for
the preservation of the ancient relics yclept
sidewalks, laid thirty years ago. W in
| couple of blocks of the White House, the
treasury, the patent office, etc.
The average reader may say: 1.-The rule
seems reasonable. 1t permits the majority
| to decide" Not so. The thing to b. con-
| sidered is the public interest. That and
nothing else. Congress endeavored by its
act of August I, 1894, to provide for sch
| improveme nts whenever "the public health.
safety and comfort" required, The consent
| of majority of small minority does not
| figure in the equation.
1t is true the Commissioners by their
computing engineer allege that under GER
| tain circumstances" they d. act n tn ir
own initiative In answer to this assertion
| 1 I'M will "A he
! the localities most frequented by sidents
| and by visitors on the one hand and to the
numerous blocks in the suburbs with new
| walks and granite curb on he other l
| fer also to a protest recently printed by the
| owner of seven lots in the suburbs against
new cement walk in front of his lots,
| which, as / remember, were ung-aded.
| At any rate he said that the Improvement
| was far in advance of any public necessity.
But majority of the owners had ask d
| for it, and the Commissioners were too ten
| der-hearted to deny. They say them
selves in the letter below, printed in an
| SWer to my protest:
June II, 1902.
| "The office under certain c'rcums anc, Of
| the very nature which the writer describes
makes practice Of selecting certain side
walks for replacement under the assess
ment system on its own Initiative, and that
| il instances exist in which this should be
| done and has not been done 1t Is a fair
| criticism, but the selection of such cases Is
| one in which there is a reasonable p-oba
| bility of variation in judgment as between
| the writer and the office. 1t Is also a fact
| that the office is to a degree deferred from
| ordering assessment work by reason of the
| existence of property on the block which
under present law would escape assess
| ment. The state of the funds and the un-
| Willingness to deny majority petition are
also material facts which substantially
! limit the number of cases in whicn the Of
(signed) &C. B. HUNT,
| ''Computing Engineer"
This answer the board approved.
Let me analyZe it.
The board somewhat grudgingiy admits
that if walks have not been replaced that
should have been my criticism is fair" I
think there is no room for doubt. The
| facts speak for themselves.
| But the board says. the selection of
walks for replacement is a matter of judg-
ment, about which there is room for an
honest difference of opinion.
Not so. | am not objectng that an i'm
| provement of this kind is made and an
| other equally demanded In the public in
terest not made What | object to is that
walks used by 10000 persons daily not
improved because the abutting owner does
not ask 1t, while the money available is
spent for walks used by only scores or a
few hundreds daily. That is the gravamen
of the charge. 1t is not a question of hon
est difference of opinion. There could be
no difference of opinion as to which i'm
provement the public health, safety and
comfort require. The walks most used
the Commissioners to observe the spirit of
the act of August Z, 1894, and revoke the
Objectionable rule which gives them an ex-
cuse for not improving walks which most
require II
Another point in the boards answer is
their statement that the existence of ex-
empt property on the block is one of the
causes why the public interest is disregard
ed. They speak of the present state of
the law and possibly we will have to suf-
fer from WORKOUT walks on every block on
which there is a church until the halcyon
future time when law will bear alike upon
the just and the unjust in the matter of
taxation.
Finally the Board assigns "the state of
the funds and the unwillingness to DENY a
| majority petition as material facts that
prevent it from acting on its own initiative
in the public interest.
The state Of the funds Is due to the
willingness to deny a majority petit
ton The Commissioners first tie their
own hands with rule and then point to
their shackled condition as an excuse for
disregarding the public health. safety and
comfort in the matter of sidewalks where
most needed.
A significant fact is recent advertise
ment of Improvements of this kind ordered
The aggregate was between $4,000 and
$l,NO. l had the curiosity to see how it
was distributed. l found by separating the
items that less than $1,000 was to be ap-
piled to the territory between PENNSYLVANIA
and Florida avenues and west from North
Capltol street. W. j. NORRIS.
Application Denied