The Kalispell bee. [volume] (Kalispell, Mont.) 1900-192?, 1903-03-17

trees now planted remain as they
are.
Again. the principal argument
made by the advocates of plan No.
. is that the young trees are pro-
tected from depredations by animals,
for the reason that the sidewalks
will be placed between the trees and
the roadways. This argument may
be sound, but it detracts nothing
from plan No. 3. Under plan No. 8,
the trees now planted and those to
be planted will be 10 feet away from
the roadway and absolutely out of
reach of any animal standing on the
curb. The city may decided later to
put in an additional row of trees
rows of trees is in no sense essential
to the beauty or symmetry of the
park line.
Again. if plan No 2 is adopted, the
property owners on each street Will
be absolutely at sea and will be I'M
able to do anything to improve the
land in front of his premises until
the city gets around to improve his
particular street.
Suppose, for instance. that it
should be found that a sidewalk on
Fourth avenue east, between Thl"t
and Fourth street was rotten and
needed renewing; suppose, also that
the city should not be ready to i'm
prove that street or to compel the
residents of that street to move their
sidewalks out. as contemplated by
plan No. 2; would it be right or fair
to compel the owner of the rotten
sidewalk to build new one at this
time, when. perhaps, this fall or next
spring the city might proceed to i'm
prove the street and compel him to
tear up his newly built sidewalk and
move it out six feet further toward
the center of the avenue.
Uunder plan No. 3, no such condi-
ton could possibly arise. If side
walk is rotten or out OF repair. 1t
can be renewed or repaired without
any danger of having to be disturbed
hereafter. If a property owner
wishes to go ahead with the work of
improving the park in front Of his
lot, all he has to do is to set the
curb out The requisite distance from
the sidewalk and proceed with the
planting Of his trees and grass. and
is not compelled to wait until his
neighbOrs or the city is ready to
take similar action. Under plan No.
9, however. this cannot be done, as
by that plan is under the side walk
as now established and the side
walk of one individual cannot be
moved until the city is ready to pro-
coed with the improvement of the
avenue upon which the property of
that particular individual is located.
1t is urged in favor of plan No. 2
that it is more easily cared for; that
the owner of abutting property would
NOW and water the parked portion
of the street if the parked portion
was prolongation of his lot; but
this argument is untenable.
In the first place the very idea of
uniformity of parking requires that
the city take care of the parked por-
ton of the street. and not leave it
lect of the various owners and ten
ants of abutting property.
In the second place, it is untenable
for the reason that if the care OF
these parked portions of the street
is left to the owners and tenants OF
abutting property, any person who
takes interest enough in his own lot
to keep it watered and moved, will
not be deferred from giving the same
care to the parked portion of the
street merely because siX-foOt side
walk intervenes between the lot and
the park line.
Again, the scheme is unpractica
Bile and expensive, for the reason
that if the parked portion Of the
street is merely a prolongation of the
lot. then every lot owner. in ordel
to make the parking uniform and a
| the same time harmonic with thu
abutting property, would be ON
PEELED to fill in or eXcavate his 10
so as to conform to a common grade
whereas, 'mder plan No. 3, the side
walk curbng defining the boundar
between the public and private pror
erty. the street parking can be mad
uniform without compelling the proI
erty owner to eXcavate or fill in hi
lot. This is serious objection t
plan No. >, for the reason that
would be hard to find two lots in TIL
city at the present time that ar
graded to a common curb.
The objections urged against pla
No. are all obviated by plan No.
and there are no advantages urge
in favor of plan No. , that are nc
shared by plan No. >.
Instead of the pedestrienne bein
compelled to walk alongside of tn