The Hood River glacier. (Hood River, Or.) 1889-1933, 1907-03-14
Ill should have q free band In this
raktar ord uof "a thnv thfpL hosk

ground already. It may not 20 speci.
fy, but IL 10 apparently the intent of
the ordinance as you cannot move a
building without to certain extent
erect ng II.
Truman Butler--I do not believe In
q prohibitive Law, as In many cases 1t
would be too eweeping. There are q
good many sides to this question.
More than are apparent at first
glance.
In my Judgment think it would
be best for council to act In each par
tioular case after having kbecome In
formed as to where the building to be
moved was to be located.
X. b. Brasa--I do not see why
council should oDject to the moving
of buildings in the IRE limits when 10
gives permits to build additions to
wooden Ibuildings. l am not In favor
of an ordinance that will prohibit the
moving Of buildings In the fire limits,
that is where they are already inside
the fire limits.
Dl. sBrosius-I am In favor of all
lowing buildings that are now in the
tire limits to be moved a. l have al
ready stated.
VIM. NJ. Stswart-Am opposed to
the moving Of buildings In the hre
limits.
s. 4. Bartmess- in favor oi
having council pass an ordinance to
prohibit the moving Of buildings ID
the fire ilimits. The idea of allowing
an old wooden building to be moveo
from one site to another and yet pro.
hibiting anyone from erecting new
one is distinction without q differ
ence. l do not believe 1t ought to be
allowed. The idea Of having fire lin
| it's established, AZ understand 1t,
was to enable the city to get rid Of
the wooden buildings inside 1t. II
you allow them to be moved from one
place to another the city will be long
time In doing 80.
W. Haynss-l would like to see the
ordinance prohibiting the moving Of
buildings In the fire limits passed. !
have had q little experience In this
line myself by having wooden build.
ing moved next to the one am In. /
do not blame the reople who moved
the building but my insurance rates
we're increased by shaving the build
ing moved next 10 me. Ii it was not
possible to do this IL would only be
Justice to all In the end.
| V. G. Brock-4I may be wrong but
Dc not think that council can pass a
strictly prohibitive ordinance In re
gard to the moving Of buildings IN
the fire limits. II 1t 10 / would not be
\ in favor OF 1t az / think 1t would In
many instances ibe unjust. / do moi
believe that buildings should b,
I moved into positions where they viii
increase the danger from fire or lin
crease the insurance satea. Occasion
ally however, the moving Of build
ing would tend to decrease rathe
.. than increase the rates and thinl
the ordinance should be restrictive
but not prohibitive.
u w. O. Ash--Have l given this mat
ter any thought? Yes, considerable
ana l d0u't think council should d
low ID to lbe done. 1t isn't much en-
! couragement for Q property owner s.
put up a nice brick building end theI
) allow some one to move an old wood
en- shack up teside It, not cnly In
I creasing the insurance rates, bu
d as iA.N.,.. a. ,n...ncc
nre anu a1sr.usnS n l. a.... 80 I. Irpi.J ~ si.omeJ
don : snans u - ovH wSs ~ " ps snow1" nv;a .
Q =. ~ Smisa- -" ~ ~ oss :
q nIa puiluihs ss lnu.sas.. 4. ~. -. rsa,nitr
! ought not be allowed, but. otberwis
it seems to me that It does not d
" any particular harm. We have nc
: yet attained the proportions OF cit
Q ana Gan narc,y auop. suoa os''so'''
J. messuuss IS ~ w. .nsy nIrc ~ - -. so ha,,ra
q r. w. "sIsns.LDv n', ~ nos .".U "ns,sl
Il ousn. 20 % sno~oe ~ na0rs r'. :. 49, !, !,
tue nisaMs.ntsse mn: \. VI n;.i ~ ip'psi shnsl ~
It 70 ~. ,, ans = My yp'h,s LIZ ....ia !,
10 InlnA oo"n0i' 0ou'A '''' y
l. hassor; E.,, .,... T p.r,r.
n was In council and on tne commitI,
10 sna. uIsi.oa ~ sne ...,e.s tpa ,,teu.,t S