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 one- 
quarter 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 con 
ceive 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