The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1904-04-21
THE HOME OWNER.
Has He Any Rights the General Pub
lie Good Is Bound to Respects

To the Editor of the Indianapolis Journal:
In these remarks owner will be des-
ignated as the party Of the first part, but the
facts will show that he really is the party OF
the last part-that is, he gets the worst of it in
all directions The party of the second part in
cludes the general public good, the beautifica
ton of the city, the preservation of driving
streets, bouleyards, ETC., and all OF these are
aided and abetted by remarks in big and little
type in the editorial columns of the city news
papers. The party of the first part, after
long time saving. accumulates So 900, $4,000
$1,000, as the case may be, which he invests in
a home in what he deems desirable neighbor-
hood He has special aversion to street-car
tracks in front of his home, and he makes his
selection with view to avoiding them so
long as he may occupy the house for which he
has paid. If he is wise. after buying his home
and the money-he at once pays all bills
against his property, in the way of paving and
sewer claims and feels fairly safe. All these
charges, it may here be said, additional to
taxes, which are likely to average close to 81
on each 800. Presently somebody a cross
street 300 or 400 feet away-a street which the
party of the first part doesn't use and never will
use-desres sidewalk and curb and
gravel roadway. and the party of the first part
is assessed and pay portion of the cost
and the same thing happens with sewer
a half three-quarters of mile distant
which is of no use benefit whatever to him.
and he pays a portion of its cost. He is told
that all these charges are in the interest of the
general benefit, the greatest good to the greatest
number the Identification of the city, etc.
Presently it is deemed necessary by the street.
car company. the city authorities and other
powers that be that a street-car line be put
down in the street which the party of the
first part bought his home in the expectation of
never being annoyed in that way. II causes a
depreciation of, perhaps 20 per cent in the value
of his home and, though the fundamental law
of the State declares that mans property
shall be taken without compensation. he APP
parently has no redress. He must either submit
to annoyance he hoped to avoid or sell his
property at loss. All this is done for the bene-
fit of tine many. the Identification of the city.
the preserving and developing of driving streets
and O. lot of other benefits with which the wise
and thoughtful editors OF the papers have made
us very familiar. OF course all want driving
streets, boueyards efficient street-car service
city Identification and all the lovely things the
editors are sure We need, but why should they
all come at the expense OF the home owner
If the general public desires all these things
why not reimburse the heme for some of
the loss he suffers? The general good is a
beautiful theory, but can't it be conserved.
as at least one OF our great editors would say,
without plundering the minority who may be
unfortunate enough to own the houses I'm which
they live? The lot OF the home owner In some
parts OF the city is not particularly happy.
Can remedy be found? HOME OWNER.
Indianapolis, April 20.