The City That Couldn't Build: A Letter from a Frustrated Investor

To the Editor:

I notice in the Monday Morning Intelligencer of the 25th inst., an editorial under the head of "Most Urgent," the case of Mr. J. M. Wallace, a manufacturing bricklayer, who is the representative of a large amount of outside capital, and who has been disappointed in his ability to obtain a place in which to do his business. This is only one case of many I have read since my arrival here, and as my business is of a nature to cause me to investigate the matter very thoroughly I have naturally been shocked.

Where is it? Is it the fault of the property owners? Not wholly. Where there are men, naturally we ask, Home, sweet home. Have you read (February 27th, 1889) the editorial "A Crisis." It points out the way very clearly by which the objection might be overcome. In the second paragraph it says: "Matters can be said to have reached an actual crisis, and unless something is done at once, the interests of the city are certain to suffer materially."

Truly that is well said, and sounds like the key note. "The interests of the city," that's it. Who manage the interests of the city? I would say our Common Council, do they not? If so, why not come out, and fire at headquarters?

Any thing the matter with them? The need of buildings is the theme, go let's keep to it. What is the first thing and the only thing necessary to begin a building? I answer: Sake and means. Is it not so? Where is the way until the streets are opened, and of what at all are the means no grade is established?

Look at the corner of the side of your city, Front and Mill streets, and what do you see? A lack of desire on the part of the property owners? I guess not. The wonder to me is that Mr. Yeager had the enterprise and pluck to erect such a building while the Council were sleeping over the grade! Don't you see it or won't you see it? I am fully aware that all property owners are not as plucky as that; is that the wood? It will do nicely but are cautious to a greater extent. Do you blame them? And do you wonder that property owners are holding back when the chosen representatives of the people haven't enough faith in the future of the city to even establish an official grade for the streets?

I did all say they must grade the streets. Establish an official grade, then an owner could build in safety.

Again, what was the last act of the City in this regard? If I am correct to inform it, is this: if I am wrong I stand corrected. The person making the application to have the street opened has to purchase all the paper, and as per too; How's was' and what does it mean? Why, some that is true suppose all owners desire to build and has the necessary means to get just the next start cash to put in his building, and no more then he can't build, and that's the thing in a nut.

Why? Because if the rest don't pay cash he has so be you are it? It's a mighty good citizen that wants to improve his city and lay his own head, but not on his neighbor's, especially when he is accommodating him. He is all too free to sacrifice his private interest.

Name a man is that the question?

If so I can do it. I personally know a gentleman who has his plans made at once, and can say as there is not the equal of this company to the city of Seattle, and he won't do it and will not do it unless the Council give him the grade.

What think you of St. Louis about them too week? Who blames an owner for building arth no grade is established, and see the City Council comes along and interrupts his building and lays a business house up in the air as yet?

Believe me,

WILSON