The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1913-03-23
STREET INTERSECTION PAVING.

| The argument III favor OF the assess
ment upon adjoining property owners
of the cost of paving street intersec-
tions, we consider to be practically un-
agsailable. We are aware that the
practice has been different. But this
different practice is unjust. Take the
case of the intersection Of any corner
and apply the principle; let us say the
intersection of Second South street and
Second East; if the cost of paving that
intersection was paid for out of the
public treasury a considerable share Of
that cost has in fact been paid by resi-
dents in the unpaved districts. The
business district is pretty well paved,
and the cost Of paving the street inter
sections therein has been (uufairly)
met in large part by the taxpayers Of
other parts Of town who have no par
ticular interest in those crossings and
the paving Of which does not in any
way improve or advance the price of
their own property; nor is their own
street-front paved. But the paving
| does improve and advance the price Of
the property adjoining in every direc-
tion. Why, therefore, should not the cost
of paving that property, which is i'm
proved just as much by paving the
street intersection as by the paving
along the front Of the block, be paid
for by the local frontage7 1t may be
said, and usually is said, that the
streets and public property and the pub
lie at large own and have the use and
control Of them. While this is quite
true, it does not apply in the mat1er
of local Improvements such as paving
or sidewalk making. The sidewalks are
also part Of the streets dedicated to
public use, and yet the property along
the front that is TO be improved is
assessed to meet the cost Of the local
improvement In both cases 1t has
always been the rule in sidewalk max
ing that the property pays for the cor
ner work, and the same rule, applied
to street paving, would be equally Just.
The general PROPOSITION that the streets
are public property. to be dealt with
by the public at large is specifically
departed from in the matter of street
paving the moment the paving Is con.
sidered; for paving is always counted
local improvement, and not general.
The process whereby paving is done is
this: paving district is established
according to the petitions of property
! owners for the paving TO be done This
is considered always as local in
provement. 1t is put in the class of
local improvements precisely the same
as sidewalk construction. In neither of
these cases is the general public ex-
pected to take any part in the i'm
provement. 1t is classified as a local
! Improvement, and the city is divided
into sidewalk or paving districts ac-
| cordingly. so that while it is true that
the street is considered as a public
utility for the use and convenience Of
all the people, it is so only in its nat
ural condition, and when paving or
sidewalking is to be put in. the pro-
cedure is always as of local improve
ment, and no other part Of the city
should be expected to take any part in
paying the cost Of that local improve
ment, but only the property In the dis
trict affected. If other parts Of the
city are called upon to pay, then they
are assessed unfairly to improve prop.
erty IN another part of the city with
out any benefit whatever to themselves.
This is the true theory and principle
upon which this special improvement
work is always done. The practice of
compelling the general fund Of the city
to pay for street intersection pavement
is illogical, unfair, and oppressive upon
the taxpayers who reap none Of the
benefits for the local improvement as
made
If this were all that is carried in the
BILL then there can scarcely be doubt
of its approval by the executive, as
well rs by public opinion. But there
are two other features in it that could
IN no wise be expected to carry save
only as they could be tackled upon some
measure that would be in itself fair
and just, as the proposition to compel
the adjoining property owners to pay
| for street intersections is.
The first Of these propositions Is that
| which provides for making storm drains
assessable against abutting property.
But storm Is not local; it Is gen eraL
1t is nothing that the property owners
of any one locality ought to be ex-
pected to provide against. The whole
city is interested in carrying off the
food waters, and the provision for
storm drains is obviously and emphat-
ically proposition for the general
good of the city, precisely as the water
supply and distribution are. A propo-
sitiOn of this kind had no business in
the bill to provide for the paving Of
street intersections.
Another obnoxious provision is the