Evening journal., 1910-12-30
MORE OPPOSITION
TO THE PAVING BILL
A. S. Reed Compliments COun-
Cil'S President on His
Stand in the Matter
Mr.. BANNING ADDS
TO HIS ARGUMENT

A. $. Reed, a local builder and con-
tractor, in letter to President OF
Council Banning, bearing on the sub
ject Of the proposed new street paw
ing bill, advocated by the Street and
Sewer Department, making abutting
property owners pay the larger por-
iion OF such new paving, compliments
Mr.. Banning on his letter and stands
by him as one opposed 10 the pro-
posed measure, The letter follows.
Wilmington, Del, Dec. 2Stn, 1910.
Hon. James L. Banning, Wilmington,
Delaware:
Dear Sir ! have intended for some
days TO write you and say was
pleased with the tone of your able let
ter of December 10 to the Every Even
ing about the proposed move to assess
abutting property for street paving;
as we found out heretofore there are
very few people who want such a law.
III tact, with one or two exceptions I
know of no heavy tax payers. Of
course, the powers that be would like
plenty of money TO spend but unfor-
tunately they pay a very small part
OF the taxes. Real estate is taxed to
10 AAtAAN hOWs WHY uRl idA NOlOlS anu
other vehicles TO help maintain good
streets. The burden of the cost now
/ falls on people who do not use the
road-bed at all see some builder
says Il would increase the value of his
/ property 25 per cent don't believe IL.
IN fact. don't think he has had much
| experience of the value of real estate.
| Half of the property IN the city was
worth more and sold more readily
| twenty years ago than Il does to-day.
| II is not bad streets that lowered the
| prices but high taxes. No capitalist
! will invest i'm real estate to-day, he
/ don't ask what kind of streets but
! what is the income. So ] might go on
FOR week giving reasons why street
| paving should not be paid for as pro-
/ posed, but ] think you have covered
/ the ground. ! am sure that no such law
! should be passed until the property
holders have a chance to express
their desires at q public election. II
/ this were done | feel sure the result
would show that our people are not in
favor of SO unjust a law
Very truly yours,
(Sigucd) A. S. Reed.
In reply to this letter, Mr.. Banning
today adds the following to what he
has already stated on the subject:
"In the above letter Mr. Reed sug-
gests that this question OF paving by
abutting property holders may come
to a vote by property holders of both
classes (paved and unpaxedl. The
suggestion. If carried out, would
come to this: Both classes have in
the past contributed in a condition of
equality to the common fund from
which the cost of practically all paw
| ing now laid has been drawn. Under
/ the proposed law both classes will
still contribute to this common fund,
and the unpaved class will be assist
ed from it to the extent Of only one
third Of the cost of their paving. and
/ be required TO furnish the remaining
/ two-thirds out of their own pockets.
1T will fu -nish a strange condition
/ for the two classes TO meet and vote
on an equality as to the proposed bill,
under which one class would be the
gamer and the other the loser. the
hope being that if this question ever
comes to a vote the beneficiaries (the
paved class) will refuse to benefit at
the expense OF their fellow taxpayers,
and vote to bury so unjust a bill 100
deep for resurrection
Respectfully.
y. L. Banning"