The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1913-09-11
THERE'S NO 1NCONsIsTEycY..

| Iuo "dSOu duu duUOIuODlle ROADS are
constructed by funds raised from
taxation Of the general public; abut-
ting property has no more to do with
it than any other property. In a
village or city, sidewalks for the use
of the public in general, the same as
the wagon and automobile roads, are
Required to be constructed by the
owners of the AUDITING property. Is
there anything consistent'aboutt this
kind of law?-Browns Valley Trib-
une.
The construction of a sidewalk in
a village or city is local improve
ment, or in other words it is public
improvement of local character.
The adjacent real property is bene-
flied by the construct ion of a side
walk. A public road is public i'm
provement in the broadcast sense of
the term, and is for the accommo-
dation of the public at large.
Our own supreme court, in the
case of Sperry VS.. Flygare, SO-325
Mimi, clearly defines a public and
a local improvement in these words
''In the city the improvement will
benefit and improve the property ad-
jacent to. and AUDITING upon, the
improved street, but will not benefit
property remote therefrom, while in
the country districts the highway
is an advantage to the public at
large and the benefit thereof is not
confined to farms through which it
may pass. 1t is therefore reasonable
to require the benefited city property
to pay the expense of the improve
ment, while it would not be reason
able, or just, or fair, to require the
farmers along the line of a country
road to pay the entire cost and ex-
pense of opening and laying the same
out"
Further on in the same decision
the court says:
''This is true also with respect
to the improvement of public streets
of municipal corporation proper,
such as paving, construction of sew
ers, and laying sidewalks, all result
ing in and constituting a special
benefit to the property adjacent to
and AUDITING upon the improved
street. But not SO with farm lands
adjoining public road. Such road
is not special benefit to the farm,
or the owner thereof, independent of,
and unconnected with, the public
benefit ~.
| Until the enactment of chapter
235, general laws of 1913, the state
highway commission was not en-
powered to expend any of the state
road and bridge fund on a road or
street running through a village or
city of the fourth class. Sec. Is of
the chapter referred to provides that
"the council of any village or city of
the fourth class, may, with the con-
sent of the highway commission,
and the county board of the county
in which such village or city is stu
ated, designate any street or road
within it's corporate limits, not less
than 60 feet in width, as a state
road when the street or road so des-
|ignated will constitute direct con-
Meeting link with the parts of a
state road leading to and out of any
such village or CITY," 1t is further
provided in said section Is that no
more than one-half of the cost of
constructing or improving any state
road within the corporate limits of
any village or city, nor in any event,
to exceed 81, 500 per mile, shall be
paid as state aid therefor from the
state road and bridge fund.
The justice of the above provision
is apparent to the most casual OBJ
server. There is no good reason why
a state road should not be improved
within the corporate limits OF a
village or city as well as on either
side of the same. Such an improve
ment is for the benefit of the gen.
eral public.