Willmar tribune. [volume] (Willmar, Minn.) 1895-1931, 1919-01-15

and the members OF our legislature |.
have never seen fit to depart from
the precedent. The furthest point to
which they have progressed has been
to recognize the states interest in
highways and to provide fund with
which to aid the counties in con-
structing roads and bridges, perhaps
with the object of obtaining co-or-
dinated systems of improvements in
contiguous counties as we'll as en-
couraging improvement in the 1ndi-
vidual county.
In the days of the horse-drawn ve-
hicle, the road question was one of |
purely local Importance and one
county, as a whole, had little inter-
est in what another county was do
Ing. The commerce Of any commune
ty so far as it moved over the high
ways, was very restricted from a |
geographical point of view, and there |
was no logical reason for enlarging |
the unit
But that day has passed. Now the
county unit is too small Many
careful students of the good roads
question have been converted to the
belief that a National Highway Sys-
tenn is necessary: few are to be found
who favor treating the problem from
the point of smaller unit than that
of a state system.
County Unit Impractical.
But we have found recently that
| there are some in Minnesota who are
still talking of the county unit plan
! and urging re-enactment of a statute
similar to the so-called Elwell Law,
which was repealed by our 1915 leg
islature. We believe that these peo-
pie have formed their conclusions
without full consideration of all
premises and that any enactment
which would seek to bind the road
| question to the county unit would be
a step backward.
In addition to the argument al
ready stated that there is a need for
road improvements on a larger basis
than that of the county unit, if mo-
tor traffic is to be properly cared
for, there are two other considera-
tions which would make a statute
similar to the Elwell Law and a
comprehensive road system in Min
nesota incompatible. These are:
First, the state has no authority,
and never can have under an Elwell
Law to compel county to proceed
with road building project. The
State, no doubt, has sufficient au-
thority to provide by law the rules
and regulations governing any i'm
provement the county sees fit to
make, but it can never force the
county to make an improvement un-
less the proper county officials con-
cur. The state might, through con-
troll of the state aid fund compel a
coordination of improvements in ad-
Joining counties when they are made,
but could not obtain the continuous
trunk lines, or arterial roads, so
; necessary to the proper development
of the resources of the state
; Second, the Elwell Law, or any
! similar statute, is not adapted to con-
ditions such as obtain in the Nor
thern part of the state, where the
distances are vast and the values
low. There IS a road, or rather a
part of a road, in Mr.. Babcock's
Trunk Highway system, which ex-
tends from the Northerly limits of
the city Of Minneapolis to Grand
Rapids and connecting there with a
road to the Iron Range and with a
road at McGregor which leads to Du-
luth. This Minneapolis Grand Rapids
road passes through the following
counties:
i An Example Cited.
Anoka, Isanti, Kanabec and Itasca
The total length is approximately
IFS miles and on a basis of $4,000
per mile for a hard surface would
cost $4,450,O00. OF this road, % miles
is in 1tasca County, which extends
for many miles beyond Grand Rapids
For sake Of better illustrating the
point have in mind, let US elimin-
ate this section of the road beyond
the Itasca County line and consider
the remaining 1856 miles.
This portion of the road would cost,
on the basis already stated, $780,
600. The Elwell Law proposes that
the state pay one-half, the county
one-fourth and the adjoining real es-
tate one-fourth. Mr.. Elwell says the
assessment Of real estate should be
spread back three miles from the
road on either side. Now we will
analyse the problem.
The States proportion would be ST.
$4,000, or little more than we re-
ceive In one year from the one mill
levy as provided by Section 16 of
Article TX of the constitution. This
| "ou1u lAdhS Tie IUdu Impossible from
the point Of view of the state.
Let us now see what would be the
situation as relating the counties.
Anoka county has rs miles, which
would cost ..$65O,000, or 1852 500 for
the county's share. Anoka county's
assessed valuation is $6,0O0,00O. To
raise $162,500 in Anoka would re-
quire a tax levy of "a mills.
1santi county also has &c miles
and its share also would be $162,5OO.
Its assessed valuation, however, is
only $4,600,0OO. Here a levy of IS
mills would be required.
Kanabec county has "a miles and
its share would be $212,5OO. It's
assessed valuation is $3,7O0,OOO. The
levy in this county would be 81
mills.
| Aitkin county has 70 miles and it's
share of the cost would be $437,5OO.
Its assessed valuation is S6,7OO,OOO
and its levy would be IS mills.
With these cold facts staring US in
the face, it does not seem probable
that the counties would be likely to
proceed with such an improvement.
This would be doubly true of Anoka
county where the road runs along the |
Eastern boundary of the county and |
the center of population is far to the |
westward.