Councilors and the Cost of Progress
A standoff between property owners and council members over street grading reveals the deep entanglement of private business and city government.
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.
The Chronicle, speaking for Messrs. Keenan and Wusthoff—both bondsmen on the James street improvement contract and city councilmen—says they are ready to complete the contract but do not wish to do so without receiving assurances of pay from the property owners. This talk is foolish. It is not customary for property owners to give such assurances. It is considered that the performance of the work is a mortgage upon their property, and it is ridiculous to talk of the contractors standing lawsuits before collecting. The city, not the property owners, pays for the work, and the city, not the contractors, will stand the lawsuits. Wusthoff and Keenan are legally bound to complete the work, and they are additionally bound in honor as members of the City Council. Talk of municipal corruption is justified when such acts as these are brought to light. That bondsmen on other streets should be compelled to complete contracts because they have no friends in the Council, while other bondsmen are released because they are members of the Council, is simply monstrous.
“Talk of municipal corruption is justified when such acts as these are brought to light.”
This editorial exposes a classic Seattle tension: the intersection of development infrastructure and the potential for self-dealing by city officials. Regrading streets was the primary way the city reshaped itself in the 19th century, often at the expense of residents.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.