The Fargo forum and daily republican., 1906-03-30
PAVING DISCUSSION
Colonel Morton Presents Comparative Figures on
Cedar Block and Creosote Paving, With
Interest Payments Per Annum.

feet again at $3.50 front foot, and you
have the sum total of $$4 ,o4o to pave sur
rounding a block Divide this in twelve
equal parts and yot1 have $4I8. So or al
cost per running foot Of a little less
than $3.50. Therefore the difference per
front foot between The creosote block
and the cedar block is not less than $$4 30
per front foot. That the foregoing fig
|ures must be absolutely correct and with
out possibility Of cortrad dictioli, take the
assessments iii the paving district III.
which Douglas Terrace is located and
you will find that upon a contract for
the cedar block with the plank base as
a foundation, where the contract price
was not to exceed $Io8 a yard, the total
cost per lot under the district plan Of
assessment was nearly, if not quite, SIS
per front foot. lii all fairness TO prop
erty owners along north Broadway, the
facts should De known The cost ac-
|ttially should be known and those who
own property there should know that
they are to be biirdened BY taxation
for pavement in many instances far
greater than the valte Of the realty it
self, and if this is known it does not
seem possible that holders of realty iii
that locality will be foolish enough to
burden themselves with taxation so
heavy, SO great, that neither the prop
erty itself will move and be saleable for
residence purposes or that owners of
homes can afford the burden
When ii comes to- our notice that the
taxation; for a sewer. a short trunk seW7
er on the south side, should create such
/ q hubbub when the assessments are but
very nominal, "a mere trifle in fact to
what the paving tax will be on north
Broadway. the people will awaken to j
true realization too late for the money
! will have been spent and they will be
called upon to stand the tax, whether or
mot they are kindly disposed at the
time.
In addition to the foregoing figures
| let us elaborate a little, even to the ex4
Itent of a little repetition. tt might be
well TO work out the problem as to the
| cost annually of creosote block pave
nent as compared with the cedar block
for much capital has beeh made by the
promoters of the creosote block pave
Irnent, .heanlen who seem to be interested
| Jill getting this pavement thrust upon
| cost would be less for the laying of
lcreosote block for by making the time
Iin which to pay for the same covering q
period Of twenty years a reduction in
cost per alnunl would result over cedar
tblock where the time in which to pay
is but ten years and the payments spread
tout over silch length of time. Have the
business men and the property owners
lstopped to consider that paving war
irants issued under the district paving
fplan draw per cent interest, allowing
tif you please that under the plan the
Ipaynleilts when made in each instance
will stop the interest on the amount oi
principal so paid, the oae-tenth or THE
lone twentieth part, respectively, i'm either
iplan OF pavement, whether on ter
year or a twenty year plan Then the
following comparative table Of figures
Twill show what the annual payments will
be hi. the matter Of the creosote block
land also in the matter of the cedar
lblock. The difference is in favor, as will
be noted, strongly in favor, of the cedar
lblock and it is bad enough to conteni-
lplate pavement tax Of even such pro.
Iportions as the cedar block involves, but
AT the end of ten years the pavement i:
IaH paid for, and the top covering Of ce.
dar blocks should be in much better con,
Iditlon than the creosote block top woulc
he at the end of fifteen years undoubted
or to say the least IL a new top. oi
blocks Of other st,rfacing were required
/ the cost would not Be so great on tlls
4 second tenryear period BY any means fol
the concrete base would be there ,irltac
land perfect if properly laid The argli.
/ iinent is conclusive, There IS not orls
thing that can be said III favor OF creo
lssote block over the cedar block TOD fol