The Kalispell bee. [volume] (Kalispell, Mont.) 1900-192?, 1903-03-17
Plan No. 3 the Only One.
Communicated

|
Now that the building of the Col
umbia Falls-Jennings cutoff has
ceased to be an object of speculation
among our residents, almost every
one has turned their attention to the
three proposed plans of street park
ing. At the outset the writer wishes
tc state he is in favor of plan No.
first, last and all the time, and |
herewith give my reasons for SO
thinking and believing. viz:
AS to the feasibility of plan No 1,
| it appears to me to be entirely out
of the question, and as the general
cOncensus of opinion seems against
it is hardly necessary to dwell at
length upon the plan. However, |
will say that, in the first place it is
inadvisable. on the ground that it is
an expensive system. as the expense
which would be involved to construct
ard maintain this plan would be
twice as much as either of plans 1
and 2. l further contend that it is
iradvisable on the ground that the
avenues are not sufficiently wide to
allow double parking on either side
OF the roadway. In my judgment, a
siX-foot boulevard is insufficient and
would bring the trees within three
feet of the sidewalk and curb. If our
avenues were from $50 to 200 feet
wide. | think the city would be justi-
fed in eliminating the item of ex-
pense and passing favorably on the
double parking system making the
boulevards on outside of the walks
from II to "a feet in width.
The real issue is undoubtedly be-
tween plans Nos. 1 and 2, and l can
not see how any one having good,
common horse sense could possibly
favor plan No. in preference to
plan No. 1. l have been in most of
the beautiful cities in our union. but
as yet have never seen sidewalk
running next to the curb. with the
boulevard running next to the prop
erty line, notwithstanding the fact
that prominent citizen today ad-
vised me that Euclid avenue, Cleve-
land, Ohio. possessed such a parking
system. 1t may have now. but it did
not own such a system in August.
it, it is hardly necessary to dwell at
lad the pleasure of walking the en-
tire length of beautiful Euclid ave
nue..
| do not know of one good. tangi
BILE argument that can be brought to
bear in favor Of plan No. 3 but on
the other hand there are numerous
we'll founded objections to this plan.
Parking is ostensibly done for the
purpose of identifying the street
but we fail to find any beauty in
this arrangement. The street, in
stead of being skirted by beautiful
green plots is bordered by unsightly
Wooden sidewalks. and the pedes-
trian. instead of walking between
grass plots is compelled to walk on
the edge Of the curb. subiecting him
self to dirt and dust. Plan No. 2 is
further condemned for tho reason
that the city will at all future times
be unable to sprinkle the boulevard
with watering carts. as they do in
TIE large tltlGS. II the DOUleNdIQ is
left for the abutting property owners
to take care of 1t will be very sorry
looking affair with absolutely no uni
formity at all. The only way to
maintain boulevard is to have it a
city charge and let the city water,
cut and do such other work as is
necessary to maintain it. The water
ing can be done by sprinkling carts
al very small expense: but with
the boulevard inside of the walk. it
is necessary to use hose, requiring
more expense and more time.
There seems to be many reasons
Why plan No. 8 should be adopted in
preference to all others. To start
with, the expense would be less, the
general appearance better. the cost
of maintenance less, and I believe
the majority of all who vote on the
proposition will favor plan No. 3.
JAMES HARRFRT