The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1902-03-25
SOME PARK FACTS
Why the Proposed Plan Should
Be Favored.
Means Very Little to Individ-
ual Taxpayers.
TIME FOR ACTION.
Present Parks Are a Disgrace
to the City.
Should Be Improved or Aban-
dOned Altogether.

Abundant information concerning the
public park plans in Topeka, and the
proposed issue of improvement bonds,
is given in a 30-page pamphlet issued
today by the board of park commits
sioners. The pamphlet will be circu-
lated carefully among the voters of
| Topeka, and there is reason to believe
| that those who have an opportunity to
| read the book will not hesitate to vote
| in favor of the proposition.
The book includes the first biennial
report of the board of park commits
| sioners, which was printed in full by
| the State Journal some time ago.
| Five maps are included in the book,
| showing the proposed improvements at
| City park, Central park Chesney park,
Potwin park and Gage park. There
| are also. several half-tone Illustrations
! showing the heart of the business and
| residence portion of Topeka 80 years
| ago, calculated to demonstrate what
| the city has accomplished in the way
| issues.
The ordinance creating the park
| board is published in full, and there
| are extracts from several addresses and
reports from other cities.
| The exact meaning of the proposed
park improvement issue, in dollars and
| cents, is given. as follows:
Not over $45,000-in two years, and
issued by the mayor and council only
as the park work actually performed
or contracted for shall require, and not
to exceed $685. in one year.
"A person who pays $40 taxes would
contribute cents for park bond in
terest the first year, and less than
cents thereafter.
"A party whose tax bill has been $100
would contribute about 20 cents the
first year and about Sc cents thereafter
for park bond interest.
"A party who pays $1,000 in taxes,
aT~a foxxr Of fhkarr af,ra
tribute only 81 the first year and about
$3.50 thereafter.
THE latest valuation of the city was
over 1000 000
Interest at per cent on $4,000 is
$1,000 per annum, or 10 cents on each
$1,000 of taxable value. or one hundredth
of L per cent, or one-tenth of a mill
tax.
Interest at per cent on S45, 600 is
$500 per annum, IS cents on each
$1,000 of taxable value, or less than two
tenthS of a mill tax.
THE present park appropriation of
$4,000 per annum can be dispensed with
for two years-a saving of so cents per
annum on each $1,000 of taxable value.
THE total tax levy in city of Topeka
for all purposes last year was $3.50. This
included for park improvement .O5 IF
the bond proposition carries it is pro-
posed to omit this item for two years,
and substitute an interest levy which
would be:
For the first year 1 cent, instead of
cents as now: for the second year
1 $40 cents, instead of cents as now.
That is, by voting the bonds we not
only secure immediate development of
the various parks, but we save for two
years cents on 500, while the annual
interest charge on the entire issue would
be only $40 cents, or less than one two
hundred and sixteenth part of the total
annual tax paid by any one"
Speaking of the influence of ward
jealousy in deciding the result of the
election the pamphlet says:
There should be no ward jealousy in
this 1t is not in any sense proper
ward question. 1t is simply a selection
of the grounds best fitted by elevation,
topography. surroundings and ease of
access for the production of the best re-
suits for the whole city and all it's peo-
pie. Such parks belong no more to the
wards in which they happen to lie than
to all other wards. They are not ward
parks. They are city parks. Do we
enjoy beautiful piece of ground, ar
tistically embellished, less because it is
not in our ward? If so, there is some
thing wrong in our moral mental
makeup Somewhere-a serious taint of
selfishness or narrowness which may be
our undoing if permitted to gain
strength by indulgence.
TT will be found in all the large Cities
where park development has been car
ried to the greatest perfection and sue
cess that the ward question has never
been a feature of the plans. Where the
parks are is of little consequence. COM
pared with their topography. surround
ings, etc, and the possibilities of their
successful development into beautiful
parks, because of their inherent quail
ties or advantages.
The experience in all cities is that
those parks are most popular and use |
full which most effectually take people |
out of and away from their daily sur |
roundings, and by giving new impress |
sions to the eye and brain and mind |
most effectively give rest to the organs |
tired quite as much by the constant |
reiteration of daily impressions as by |
actual hard labor
1T seems quite proper, however to /
avoid bringing the bond question up |
again soon. by including in this propo- |
sition sufficient provision for develop |
ment work in the First and Second |
wards, either one large or several |
small playground tracts, beauty |
Spots" the residents of those dis |
tricts may at any future time deter /
mine to acquire
For convenience we speak of them /
as wards, but such parks, if acquired, |
will not in any sense be ward parks. |
They will be city parks, open to and of I
and use to persons from over /
and embelliShed from the general park /
fund just the City park, Gage park.
Central park and others will be used /
and enjoyed with equal freedom by the
residents of all the wards, and will be
from the general fund re-
gardless of the ward in which the |
parks are located.
''The $4,000 to be set apart can only !
be expended in those two wards. but
there is no time limit. so that the peo-
pie of those districts need not be forced
into park requirements expenditure,
nor need they feel that by delay they
will lose the provision for DEVELOPMENT
-r1rl- han n oCir frN not