THIRD BOSTON OBJECT LESSON 81
are lots averaging forty-five feet deep, having one
forty-eight foot public street, with all its public utilities,
at the front door, and another fifty foot street at the
back door, equivalent to one street for abutting lots,
each twenty-five feet deep, making the one item of
street cost, for the accommodation of these buildings,
four times what the highest public welfare demands.
On the other hand, it is probable that if the buildings
in Cornhill were new and adapted to the situation,
they could easily accommodate four times the business
that is done in the present area.
With four times as much street as is needed, for onequarter
of the amount of business, is it not a simple
calculation that Boston’s taxes, on account of the
business done on Cornhill to-day, are something like
sixteen times as heavy as they need to be? One would
naturally think that the owner not only should pay for
the maintenance of the land value, by which he profits,
but should also make the utmost of such public facilities.
As a matter of fact, he does neither. Is it hardship to
require him to bear the taxes? Is it possible to conceive
of the adaptation of unlimited means to a
smaller end than in this case of Cornhill? The object
of all public service and good government is to provide
people with home and business facilities. When, as
in this case, neither of these objects is attained, is not
the expenditure a public waste? Is it not money spent
for nothing? Surely, there is no prosperity in vacant
lots. These are, in one sense, worse than vacant, yet
their value keeps on increasing. New buildings on
the top of land increase its value, but a new subway
tvith two new subway stations at public expense,
under the land, will, as is here witnessed, sometimes
