The Fight for Seattle’s Tide Lands
Boosterism clashes with civic control as a proposal to alienate tide lands sparks fears of corporate monopolization.
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 proposition now before the constitutional convention to alienate the tide lands immediately fronting all cities and to make them the property of the several municipalities is an adroit move on the part of the tide land jumpers to divide the forces which now stand between them and the success of their hopes. It is hoped by the creators of this diversion to throw the whole matter into controversy with a view to final compromise or nothing. City ownership of the tide lands is a very attractive bait for Seattle and other Sound towns, but it must not be forgotten that the getting of revenue is only part of the public interest in the tide-flat property. The real importance of this property is in its relation to the commerce of the city; that is, it is more important that the conveniences of commerce be protected than that a revenue be secured. The waterfront of Seattle and other cities should be administered more with a view to promoting commerce than to making immediate profits.
“It is more important that the conveniences of commerce be protected than that a revenue be secured.”
This 1889 debate over whether to prioritize public commerce or private development on Seattle's waterfront prefigures the modern tensions between port interests, public access, and the ongoing redevelopment of the Central Waterfront.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.