The Logan Republican. [volume] (Logan, Utah) 1902-1924, 1913-03-29
REFERRED TO HON. p. c. NELSON


peatedly asked what is necessary to induce the
"snow pillow man" to operate in certain parts of the
city. In the heart OF the CITY, within three
blocks from the Main street some Of the side
walks have been deliberately passed up. The
conundrum how citizens get stand in is re.
specially referred to Hon. p C. Nelson
i i. i.
NO PAVING THIS YEAR
Since the veto Of the paving intersection bill
it is given out that there will be no paving this
year. This is a sad commentary the city admin
istration, and is an excuse that Is not worth the
effort. II we cannot get paving without writing a
bill on the statute books that is wrong in general
principles then 1t looks like We will have to forego
the improvement for some time
It is estimated that the intersections for the
proposed paving district in Logan would cost about
$4,000, providing the expensive article is used, while
II the less expensive kind is used 1t would cost
about $4,000 1t is easy figure out how this $4,000
could have been saved from the salaries Of officers
and put into paving but the administration appar.
emily prefers to raise salaries create Offices, and
keep office equipped with three paid employees
that has hitherto been with two, with plenty of
time to spare, than to put the money into paving.
i j. i
THE PAVING VETO
We feel that Governor Spry did the right thing
in vetong the paving intersections BILL The bill
reason for its death. When property owners pay
for abutting frontage nothing should be
qured, and 1t is good logic to say that extra
burden should be imposed even in order to get the
improvement. Besides the fftyone per cent pro-
vision would in opinion have worked against
paving rather than for it. The following commun-
ication to the Governor is to the point:
Hon William Spry, Executive Office. City:
Dear Governor Spry-If Senate Bill No. go, the
ic rgbt md fair md ms
why would not similar bill be right and fair and
Just for the counties and public highways?
Under the old law OF paving did not the pub
lie pay even less for the Improvement than 1t was
benefited?
The abuttng property enhanced in value
but SO were the taxes. The capitol will enhance
in value the adjacent property. Then shall this
property build the capitol?
Is there any improvement that benefits great
err proportion of the public than a pavement? TO
make the abutting property pay the entire cost is
then to some extent taking private property for
public benefit without compensation Does TINS
not violate a fundamental principle OF our consti-
tuition?
Three fourths OF the tax paying part OF the city
is paved. Why does not this portion OF the city
20 to the commissioners and advocate a half mill
or SO raise in the taxes so the city can 10 its part
of all the paving wanted?
Paving is wanted. to be sure but Ia this a
reason why the public should not pay at least a
mart of the paving since 1t derives so much OF the
benefit? Who wears the paving out? Who uses
the paving?
Is 1t right to say to the people that you can
have paving only when you pay more than your
lust proportion OF the paving? We take the street
out of your control. but you must pay the entire
cost OF its maintenance just the same
I have talks d to many men about senate BIZ
No % The great majority Of them think 1t is
wrong in principle, and therefore should not be-
come law. Yours respectfully.
JOSEPH F. MERRILL.