The Hood River glacier. (Hood River, Or.) 1889-1933, 1907-03-14
SENTIMENT IS
FOR ORDINANCE
AGAINST MOVING OF BUILDINGS
Want Council to Pass Ordinance Re
stricting Their Removal from Place
to Place In Fire Limits.

The ordinance which council pro-
poses to pass in regard to moving
buildings in the fire limits has been
the cause of much discussion among
property owners in the fire limits and
also those outside of it. There is O
wide difference of opinion In regard
to the matter, but as can be seen
from the interviews published below
there il sti ong sentiment In favor
Of an ordinance that will restI lot the
moving of buildings in the fire lin
its. In fact it would seem that the
majority are in favor of a prohititive
ordinance.
As In all things there are two sides
to the question and it Is the inten.
tion of council to make an effort be-
fore passing the ordinance to deter M
inc just how property owners stand In
the matter. Many property owners
feel that the town has not yet arrived
at the stage where measures can be
adopted that would be applicable In
a large city and that the passing OF q
prohibitive ordinance is likely to
prove unjust and work hardship to
those who have invested their small
savings in a business and who would
be forced to abandon it IL the build
ing they were occupying was demol-
ished. They alsv claim that In many
instances buildings could be moved
In the fire limits without increasing
insurance rates and would In some
cases lower them. The adherents of a
restrictive ordinance also claim that
q prohibitiive ordinance viii have a
tendency to retard the growth OF the
business part OF the city.
On the other hand the supporters
of the prohibitive ordinance say that
the time has come to establish q hard
and fast law in regard to wooden
buildings in the fire limits and that
the privilege of moving building
from one place to another is equival-
ent to allowing the erection of new
one and should be done away with.
They point to the risk and higher in
surance rates occasioned very fire..
quently by allowing the moving o.
buildings and say that II the property
owners be allowed to continue NOV
ing them the object Of the ordinance
to get rid of wooden buildings in thu
fire limits will be defeated as the,
can te moved around indefinitely
The supporters of the prohibitive or
dinance claim also that IL the matte
ia left In any way open many compil
cations will arise that will make
yery difficult to decide whether th
ordinance applies to the part ticula
case in point. They think the tim
has arrived for strictly prohibitive o.
dinance and that council should pu
one in force.
Several others have suggested tina
the matter be left with council to ac
in each particular case or grant per
init or not as it sees fit.
The agitation in this matter wa
brought to climax by the fact tina
Sherman Young, the confectioner
bought the lot between Franks mar
ness shop and the lot on which IT
proposed to erect the Eliot buildin
and proposing to move the woode
building in which he 10 doing busi
ness at present onto 1t.
BY his doing so 1t is said that Ia
insurance rates on the buildings 0
each side will be raised. Mr.. Youn
has been notified to vacate the lot o
which his place of business no
stands aud unless he can move q
building onto suitable business Y
: his BUSINESS will be ruined and ID
building will be an almost total los
j At the same tine it Is said that u
{ new building will not be erected
the Young building Is moved.
:; In the effort OF the Glacier to 9
the sentiment in the matter IT, nl
sounded property owners ana pus
8 ness men in the fire limits and othe
!: who were thought to be unbiased !
the controversy. Their ideas are
follows:
]. Il. Henderson-I am not In fav'
of an ordinance that will be entire
prohibitive as in many instanc
y wooden buildings might be moved
u the fire limits and lessen rather thi
IS increase the insurance rates. This
a matter that l think council shou
handle by permit and act in each !
y dividual case after Investigation.
,, P. s. Davidson--I do not believe
strong restrictive ordinance, Of
think 1t would work an injustice
some cases. Where the moving Of
building would have tendency
increase insurance rates or make {
=. danger from fire greater the ordinail
should be 40 framed that it could
prevented. should think coun
. could dispose of this matter witbe
passing a prohibitive ordinance.
Geo. L. Prather--l do not belle
that the moving of buildings in
5, fire limits ought to be allowed. WI
Ia the use OF having an ordinaI
against the erection of frame bui
ings In the fire limits If you can mi
a building of this character from (
place to another. When you all
or this you take away the protect
e. which the fire limit is supposed
81 afford.
ss, j. Otten--I am not only opposed
at allowing the moving of buildings
on the fire limits, but also to the pr
Iege of building additions to them.
. think that both should be done a,
with. II we are going to have a
limit | think that its provisi
should be strictly observed and
favoritism shown to anybody.
w. j. Baker-Where the moving
building does not make q gre'
risk and endangeI the abutting pI
erty | d. not think 1t should te
posed. | am not in favor OF prol
tive ordinance, as | think 1t We
work hardship in many cases.
III. f. Davidson-I am in favo
an ordinance that will strictly pro
/, 1t the moving of buildings from
, uoint to another In the fire limits
q. ID. Culbertson-If the movin
building does not increase the
surance rates or jeoparnize o
property l think that the os
nal should be allowed to move the bt
ing. Hood River has not yet bec
such a metropolis chat 1t is neces