Aberdeen herald. [volume] (Aberdeen, Chehalis County, W.T.) 1886-1917, 1905-04-17
REMOVAL OF SHACKS WILL Be
FOUGHT In courts.
Owners WillprObably Attack Validity
of Fire Limit Ordinance, Although
Different Cases will Present Vari-
GUS DefenSeS. An Intere Stina
Period of Litigation Anticipated.

Inc instructions OF the city council to
Attorney Taggart to institute suits for
the removal OF the temporary buildings
erected under special permits after the
big fire in October, 1908, has aroused
considerable interest in this matter,
which has been u sort OF bug bear to the
council for the past year, and brief re-
sumo OF shack history may be interest.
ing.
The fire that wiped out the business
district OF Aberdeen occurred on October
Is, and the city council at once took
| steps to prevent it's being rebuilt with
wooden structures, and appointed a
special committee TO get quick action. In
order to avoid having the burnt district
left vacant, and wooden structures built
around it, large fire limit was decided
upon, with al announced view of it's
curtailment as soon as the old business
district was built up.
The records show the following pro-
ceedings toward this end: On October
IL, the day after the fire, an ordinance
was passed regulating buildings in the
city and dividing it into fire districts.
For some reason this ordinance was not
considered valid, and on October 10, a
resolution was adopted forbidding the
use Of the streets for building material
within what is now the fire district,
| without a permit, in which the party
building agreed to remove the structure
| within six months. October 81. the
ordinance now in force was passed by
the council. published on the Oath, and
became effective October 80.
Some shack owners contend that there
was no law against their building until
the latter date; that after being burned
out they were exceedingly anxious to
recommence business, and to avoid the
threatened trouble signed the agreements
unuer duress, and that they will resist
compliance with its terms. There are
but six buildings now standing that were
erected after October 80, while there are
thirteen whose permits antedate the
present law. OF those thirteen, ten of
them were built on permits dated Octo
ber 49, 20 and 81.
Again, it is contended that the city
did not act in good faith with those build
ers, by binding them to remove in six
months, and at the same time taking a
lease for two years of lot at Wishkalf
and + streets, and erecting a similar
building thereon. 1t is said that the
city is in poor position to rigidly enforce
law that it is violating itself.
To the average citizen, with neither
brick buildings to rent or shacks to re-
move, it would appear that the question
is solving itself in a fairly satisfactory
manner; that some OF the shacks are
outside OF what the proper fire limits
should be, and would be converted into
we'll appearing buildings if the owners
were permitted to do SO. To this class
of people it is plain that as soon as a
sufficient number OF good buildings are
provided at rental within the means Of
those now doing business in shacks,
those people will move to the better
buildings.
The advisa5ility OF tue city going to
law with number of It's citizens is al.
ways a question, when it can possibly be
avoided, and it becomes especially so
when it is apparent that a year may be
consumed in litigation, at immense ex-
pense, before a decision will be had on
the question, when it is fairly reasonable
to expect that the matter will have
almost entirely solved itself by that time.