Same Streets
← All stories

The Price of a City’s Future: Yesler’s Corner

A single landowner held Seattle’s urban development hostage, forcing the city council to choose between private property rights and the public good.

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 council, earlier having compromised on a plan to widen streets that practically relieved all property holders affected, excepting Mr. Yesler, saw this alteration embodied in an ordinance. Before the mayor had signed it, it became known that Henry Yesler would not willingly assent to its provisions. He announced that if the cut were made as planned, he would board up his several important properties in the business center, stop building operations, and fight the city authorities in the courts. He proposed, however, a compromise: a partial cut from the objectionable corner, not sufficient to bring Front Street into line with Commercial Street. This compromise found powerful support among bankers and other property holders who feared the business consequences of Yesler stopping his building operations. The matter was considered by the council informally, the unanimous judgment being that the compromise offered by Mr. Yesler was of small value. It was decided to fall back upon the original plan: a straight cut through the Starr, Boyd, and Yesler lots, making a straight line between the west sides of Front and Commercial streets. To the surprise of everyone, Captain Burns changed his mind and announced he would not vote for it. With Mr. O'Brien absent due to illness, the measure failed. A simple, ineffective widening of Front Street was carried instead, signifying the complete abandonment of the project. It is a case where the private interest of a single citizen has completely triumphed over the public interest.

“It is a case where the private interest of a single citizen has completely triumphed over the public interest.”

— Printed in The Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1889
Then · 1889137 years apartNow · 2026

Henry Yesler’s ability to halt municipal infrastructure projects by threatening to board up his holdings highlights a century-old tension in Seattle. Today, the debate over 'private interest' versus 'public good' persists as Seattle struggles to force development and transit infrastructure through land held by powerful interests, proving that the city's growth has always been a battle of leverage.

The original page

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1889-06-26. Library of Congress, Chronicling America.

From readers

No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.

About this story

From
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, JUN 26, 1889, Page 1
Rights
Public domain
Place
47.59003, -122.33547 · placed automatically
The paper in the Library of Congress catalog ↗