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