Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1903-04-16
THE SIDEWALK LAW
Question Raised as to the
Commissioners Powers.
COMPULSORY PERMITS
THE STATUTE GIVES A GENERAL
DISCRETION.
Old Walks May Be Relaid or New
Ones Ordered-Funds Too
Low for Both.
COMPULSORY PERMITS

To the Editor OF The Evening Star:
I hoped. as no doubt did your readers.
that / had said my last word on the SUD-
tect of WORKOUT sidewalks in the central
.portions of the city, but find that post
script to my communication printed In your
issue Of the Sd instant is necessary.
This necessity is imposed upon me by the
homeless condition in which The Star has
left the subject matter as its final conciu-
sion in the editorial and two-column article
on the genesis of the cement walk and COM
pulsory assessments to provide them.
On taking up The Star containing these
articles 1 was first inclined to hope that
they would be found to reinforce my critl-
cisms of the present system OF the board OF
Commissioners. Alas for the vanity OF ND
man expectations. Not only does The Star
fail to suggest cure for present conditions,
1t expressly reaches the conclusion that I'M
TIL "a broader view of their duties is taken
by owners of property AUDITING on worn
out walks and "a larger fund is provided
there Is no present prospect of more rapid
rate Of substitution of the cement walks
for the brick atrocities.
How pleased the board of Commissioners
must have been to read this utterance of
the tribune of the people There is in 1t no
suggestion that the law as 1t STANDS would,
If executed. remove all cause of just com
all the sidewalk renewed by order of the
board Is in cases where a majority Of the
owners of abuttins property request 1t.
And yet Congress gave the board power
to order such work wherever and whenever
1.-THE public health, safety and convenience
required What was the object Of this law
which the board neglects and refuses to en-
force? Are there any such limitations In
the law as the board have adopted? Does
the law state that new walks may be laid
when majority of the owners of abutting
property on a given block ask it? Certain
1y not. Such Improvement shall be ordered
(when the law Is executed in good faith
when 1.-THE public health, safety and con-
venience require" That means what 1t
safety and convenience of a few individuals
require.
Now. will any man say that the public
safety and convenience, If not health. does
not require that the walks the most used
by residents and visitors should not be first
replaced? Is not this a public necessity?
And if it Is, why should the board regard
the wishes of few individuals affected?
Do they not ruthlessly disregard the wishes
of minority of owners when the majority
request such Improvement? Why this ten
derness. therefore, of the feelings of the
majority. who are an infinitely small mi
nority of the public?
The facts of the case tend to satisfy me
that the rule of the board is adopted more
for their own health, comfort and conven-
ience than that of the public. 1t is I'M
pleasant to be annoyed with protests from
influential citizens who complain when a
new walk is proposed in front of their
property that the old one is not absolutely
impossible, and therefore should be left
for another decade.
If only we had in this town a public opin-
ion worthy the name there would not be
left for so many years such stretches of
WORKOUT walk as that leading down to the
Corcoran Gallery, for instance, over which
so many thousands of visitors pass, and
are lost In wonder that the horses
much better provided for than the humans
in the capital city. Or the east side of 18th
north from H. full of depressions in which
ducks (small ducks could swim after every
rain storm.
1t may be that the law which provided
that the repair and replacement Of side
walks should be done either upon the vol
untary initiative of the owners of abut-
ting property or on the compulsory assess
ment system was unjust Perhaps this
class of Improvement should be made at
the cost of all the taxpayers. That ques-
ton is now, however, academic. 1t Is no
longer practical We have proceeded for
many years under it and possibly one
half of the city has been new sidewalked,
and the owners of abuttlng property have
paid onehalf the cost. 1t would therefore
be greater injustice to them were the
law now repealed than it would be to
others TO execute the law as 1t stands We
have put our hands to the pillow and can
not turn back There is therefore no
reason why the board of Commissioners
should refuse to execute the law in the
hope that 1t may be changed
VIII not The Star agree that a law of
congress should not be treated as a dead
letter? And that in respect to the replace
ment of sidewalks those most used should
hrst receive attention. And that the wishes
OF individuals have nothing to do with
the case, but on the contrary, only the
public convenience and comfort should be
iesaiueo w. J. NORRIS.