By Danny Crownover
Despite the war and shortages in material and labor Gadsden has done much paving in the past few years and in 1945 prepared to launch the biggest program of that kind in its history, all of which recalls the almost insurmountable difficulty in getting the first paving done here.
People on the fringes of the city and in the new additions that are springing up overnight complain about dust and mud but they should have seen what the downtown business section had to put up with before the city fathers found courage to fight for permanent street improvement.
In wet weather wagons mired to the hubs on Broad Street, even in front of the courthouse. It was not uncommon to see a wagon unload in order to prize it out of the mud.
Chestnut Street in spots was just as bad. In dry spells the dust was simply fearful. It was frequently necessary for stores to close their front doors during busy hours in order to escape the dust storms.
Back in 1896 a small effort was made to put down some chert and it helped a lot. Then in the following year it was liberally put down on Broad and Chestnut downtown, also on cross streets.
That gave some relief from mud but not from dust. It was not until 1910 that the city decided to pave Broad Street with vitrified brick.
First, it issued $25,000 in bonds for that purpose only to find that it had gone about the problem the wrong way, that the only feasible plan, as proved by experience of practically every city in the country, was to assess the cost of such improvements against abutting property.
The bond money was used for something else and the policy of making property pay brought about a big howl.
Some old timers said frankly that they had been in the mud and dust all their lives and did not feel that they should pay for paved streets for coming generations to enjoy. They used every sort of argument that they could find and fought hard for their views.
Paving began on Broad Street in the midst of much muttering but when it started on Chestnut between Fifth and Third streets the car line went to court. Its contention that the city could not legally charge street improvement to property owners was upheld by the circuit court but was promptly denied by the state supreme court.
Since that ruling there has been no court procedures, but occasionally there were threats of such action when sewers and paving were mentioned.
This opposition soon died out and it is a fact that it has been difficult to keep up with demand for concrete sidewalks and permanent streets.
Contact The Vagabond at [email protected]
