Evening journal., 1909-03-09

in those ways 1t IS the owner Of lots
whose frontage on streets amounts to
5000 feet. ana the sides Of those lots
border on streets TO the extent OF about
5000 feet. OF this q 900 feet, less
than 1000 have pavements other than
macadam Nearly J.iOo feet are
rnacadamized. There are thus about
"a, 900 feet for which we would, under
the proposed act. be liable to pay If the
streets should be paved while we hold
the lots We have houses accommo-
dating 226 families, all but 81 OF these
in the outskirts OF the city.
But there IS one respect in which
our condition Is not Identical with that
Of owners Of single houses or lots. or
Of a small number OF houses or lots.
/ IL is practicable for us to build up a
block at one operation, and under the
present system we have in several in
stances. by paying a large part OF the
cost, been able to get the streets pu,
in order; and where a whole block is
built up, and large amount thus add
ed TO the city assessment list, the street
authorities naturally and properly con
slider that IL gives some additional
claim 70 have the street beds Inn
proved The disadvantages OF the
present system are thus not quite as
great proportionately TO us as they are
10 the owners OF single lots or houses
or of a few such properties.
"If paving is paid for by a city Ioaa
a portion Of the loan becomes immedi-
ately a lien on any real estate.
would rather have a lien of the same
amount on it in such way that when
am able I may pay tho debt and free
the property.
Mr. DUPONT Also Favors Act.
Francis l. DUPONT. called on, said:
Il am heartily IN favor Of this pro-
posed law. I believe II TO be ex-
pedient and fair and in line with the
progress new being made in other
cities My home Is situated on two
streets which Il is expected will be
paved and / am certainly not COM
planning because Of this
Howell $. England said: The city
undertakes by this bill 10 pay one
third OF the cost of this street paving
and requires the other two property
owners TO nay the remaining two
thirds. When [ was married I paid
A,400 to buy and equip house IN
Van Buren, street. few years latter
7 sold that property. but not for s4.4O0.
oh. mol got $4,000 for e.. A now
nrebrick pavement made $500 for me.
Now Messrs Gray and Sparks assure
me that my cost for that Improvement.
under this proposed bill. would have
been $50 Would that not have been
q good proposition IN business? Get
the rent Of a fine house several years
and 5000 profit after spending 1902"
r. CharlSley Hatton said: "Ths is
a condition and not a theory. Many
years ago we did have an unpopular
law regarding street paving and Will
mington stood still. Now we are a
growing city. We can have our city
paved &c YOU will pass our bill.
Everywhere a street pavement IN front
Of mans property is a decided physi-
cal. sanitary and financial advantage.
Under this proposed bill everybody who
wants streets paved. practically all nj
least. can have them.
Councilman John j. McGovern and
James T.. Banning and Peter ]. Ford
declared that the great masses of tho
city Of Wilmington had been paying
for paved street for others TO use and
enjoy.
Samuel II. Baynard said: "some Of
MS own large area ~ farm property
| about Wilmington. We arc improving
that proncrty-improved it last year TO
the sum OF 100000. We nut un some
houses and got tenants. and whiie they
were moving IN storm came and
their vans and wagons were soon
stuck, hub-deep. In the streets. Now
/
ought 60 be way TO get them"
Mr.. Reed Opposes Bill.
Archibald S. Reed opposed the bill at
great length. Mr. Reed declared that
/ I'm all the talk about street paving IN
/ Wilmington the city had taxed prop
/ erty 10 nay for It to the extent of
seven per cent, "and vet ten years
ago To-day we had twenty-three miles
Of paved street. To-day. after all
we have only thirty-three miles. and
there arc ninety-five miles of street al-
together in WilminEtons map.
John ]. McGovern declared It despotic
to take people by the neck when they
are Just able TO maintain what property
they have acquired. and say to thom
that they will pay this additional cost.
President Sparks. calling Speaker
Cooper 70 the chair, declared that Il
meant perpetual mud for Wilmington
hereafter or a division OF the costs Of
paving among abutting property own
ers. There could be no more bond
issues Wilmington is attempting to do
on SiSS.000 n year 20 its street and
Sewer Department what the city OF
| Reading Is doing on double that
aomunt. he said'
Michael McEvily declared that for a
piece OF property he had bought on
Connell street, 1t would cost him
S1,05S paving expenses under the pro-
posed law. after paying all these
property taxes for years, would now
have 10 pay over a thousand dollars.
he added.
Debate Closes.
Archibald s. Reed had twenty-one
minutes 20 close the debate against
the bill. He said:
How many people in Wilmington
who ride or drive over the street. who
ride over them or use the streets, an
there in proportion to the number ~
people who walk when they go any.
where and yet would have to pay thes.
paving expenses? Why not 10 pei
centum. Ninety per centum Of th'
people would. under this law. have I.
pay for paving streets for someboda
else to use"
Mr.. Gray declared that in four YEAR