The High Cost of Progress in Seattle
Property owners on Pike Street are challenging the city council, arguing that if their land was damaged by regrading, they shouldn't be taxed for the 'benefits' of the improvement.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
Seattle — A number of property owners who have lots on Pike Street abutting the proposed regrade appeared before the street committee of the city council to protest against the assessment roll filed against the property. Their legal representative raised a novel point of law, which the committee was unprepared to deal with, and the matter was taken under advisement, pending an opinion from the corporation counsel as to the legal status of the assessment. When it was determined to regrade Pike Street, a jury in the superior court awarded damages and decreed benefits on the property affected on the testimony of the city engineers and experts summoned for the purpose. In the majority of cases, damages were awarded to lot holders whose property was either materially lowered or elevated by the regrade. Those who were awarded damages now contend that the city cannot consistently decree that they will also be benefited by the regrade and impose upon them a tax for their proportion of the cost of the improvement.
“Those who were awarded damages now contend that the city cannot consistently decree that they will also be benefited by the regrade.”
This 1903 struggle over the 'regrading' of Seattle's hills mirrors modern urban development fights. It highlights the eternal tension between municipal infrastructure goals and the individual property rights of those standing in the way of the 'greater good.'
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.