The Fight for Eminent Domain and the Rise of Local Improvement Districts
The City Council debates a controversial proposal to empower the city to condemn land for public improvements, sparking fears of 'jobbery and corruption.'
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.
Mayor Ronald called a special meeting of the city council last night to consider legislation affecting cities of the first class. The primary issue was the power of eminent domain. Corporation Counsel Donworth explained that while property could be condemned for streets and boulevards, it would be under the supervision of three appraisers. Judge McGilvra voiced strong opposition, arguing the system of local assessment districts is 'vicious' and 'too often led to jobbery and corruption.' He contended that parks and boulevards benefit the entire city and should be funded generally, rather than by taxing adjacent properties. Proponents like Lee J. Pitner countered that the system was successful in Chicago and would incentivize land development. The council ultimately voted to endorse the bill.
“The system of local assessment districts is a vicious one, and too often led to jobbery and corruption.”
The tension between municipal growth and the rights of individual property owners, especially regarding local improvement districts (LIDs), remains the central mechanism of Seattle's urban development today.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.