The Paducah evening sun., 1910-01-18
A CASE IN POINT.

A CASE IN POINT.
The Seventeenth street muddle,
which is likely to cost the city two
or three thousand dollars before Il Is
through, is a case in point to en-
phasize the benefit of the commission
form of municipal government The
original purpose was to build the
street south from Broadway TO Guth-
rie avenue to open a way for farmers
without crossing the Tennessee street
death trap. A culvert, to cost ap-
proximately $1,000. was included in
the estimate. and when the ordinance
reached Mayor Smith, he suggested
that in consideration of the benefit
! of having a wide. well graded street
| Through their property, that would
make II accessible for building lots.
property owners might be willing to
assume this expense. The measure
was considered and, II was supposed
an agreement had been reached
whereby property owners were TO pay
for the culvert.
At any rate. the ordinance was
anged. assessing the cost against
the property owners. and the i'm
provement was put through. Then
property owners complained against
paying for the culvert. asserted that
the Improvement does not benefit
their property, and asked the city TO
pay for the culvert. The city SO
licitor informed the general council
that 1t was a matter of discretion,
as the city could collect the assess
ment. The matter was argued until
the old council expired The new
general council Immediately after
reorganizing relieved the property
owners and placed the cost on the
city.
The second ordinance did not pro
vide for opening the street clear
through. but only to b street. This
was not as. intended and the board Of
public works and city engineer were
misled II was not until the esti-
mates were being made out that the
engineer discovered the error How
ever that may be, since the city has
assumed the cost Of the culveTt. some
of the property owners, II Is under
stood. now are standing on the tech
lnicality and declining to pay for the
benefit OF the street beyond B street,
and IL Is probable that the city. In adj
ldition to relieving the property Y
owners of the expense of the culvert.
will be forced to relieve them from
the street assessment.
We have no comment to make on
the merits of the case. for the general
council has acted, and we may pre-
sumo. acted advisedly in the matter:
but IL is apparent that too many
cooks spoil the municipal broth
One thing was intended by the city,
but another thing was done, and poor
Mr.. Taxpayer must pay for IT,
This Seventeenth street extension.
OF course, is an extraordinary case.
IL serves the purpose of connect
ing outlying parts of the city with
the downtown district, and affords
access for a considerable number Of
farmers TO our markets; 80 the city
really is benefited as a whole BY the
Improvement. and the taxpayers are
getting their moneys worth, If they
have to pay for every foot Of 1t.
However, there are constant demands
for opening streets that will benefit
some large property owners. and
make their tracts accessible for
building lots, and these streets often
require filling and bridging II
doesn't seem fair to make the city
paw for Improvements designed to
benefit private real estate invest
ment, and the city should require all
the extraordinary expenses Of filling
and bridging to be borne by the one
benefited. and streets of the standard
width dedicated.
Here again our unfortunate sys-
tenn interferes. Some councilman
fathers the project. and he trades his
vote for another cOuncilmans scheme
to get his own through. The board
OF public works is ordered TO do the
work and has no discretion in the mat
ter. Our complex system costs the
taxpayers thousands OF dollars every