she sends her wash out.

One unexpected discovery was that over half the women were willing to have their wash done on days other than Monday; particularly willing were they if delivery could be promised the same day. One of the distressing facts is that many families have not a change of bed linen, and consequently cannot send out their wash when it may take several days to get it back. If laundries would confine themselves to the neighborhood in which they are situated instead of maintaining a clientele which may necessitate an elaborate, expensive collection and delivery system covering the length and breadth of Manhattan, it seems probable that a quicker, and hence a more valuable, service could be given the public.

selected group, the replies as recorded on the 150 question sheets can be quoted with justice to the people and the study.

It is noteworthy that the district canvassed was for the most part very poor in modern conveniences. In one block 40 per cent of the families were without wash tubs; in another, 59 per cent. An adjacent district was also visited, where conditions were much more up-to-date. The analysis of the answers shows, nevertheless, that while 63 per cent washed at home, 67 per cent said they favored the proposed laundry. The replies of the 32 per cent unwilling to patronize the laundry fall into several classes. Fourteen refused because of insufficiency of linen, or because the wash was too small to send out. A few declared they could not afford to spend any money at all on washing. Nine said that all laundries were filthy; six preferred to do it themselves, and several said that it was a disgrace for a woman not to do her wash. "I've nothing else to do but wash," objects one, and another says she does not want her neighbors to see that

Wet-Wash Laundries

The Bureau of Public Health and Hygiene of the New York Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor is installing in a part of its Milbank Memorial Bath a wet-wash laundry in which the

principles above mentioned will be exemplified.

It is intended to be a model for business methods and washing methods alike, conducted on a self-supporting basis which will still allow a marked reduction of the price charged by less up-to-date, less efficient laundries, and offering to the public a service which for cheapness, quickness and thoroughness has never been at its disposal in the past.

In order to learn whether the people in the neighborhood preferred to deliver and collect their own laundry, or pay an additional charge of 10 cents to have it done for them, great care was taken to sound them on this point.

It was found that 38 per cent accepted the proposal of the lower rate, which necessitated their own collection and delivery, while 47 per cent said emphatically "no"; 15 per cent made no answer. Of the 38 per cent accepting the lower rate, one-half expressed their willingness to use the higher rate, and of the 47 per cent who refused to make their own collection and delivery, over half accepted the rate with the additional charge. There were 40 per cent who were non-committal about the higher rate, and 41 per cent favored it, 19 per cent refusing.

These data show conclusively that the people prefer on the whole to pay the extra charge of 10 cents, which will save them the labor of getting their wash to and from the laundry. Among the 39 who gave reasons for this somewhat unexpected attitude, 15 declared that the bundle was too large, 12 that there was no one to carry the wash, and 9 said that the saving wasn't worth the trouble.

As a rule, it was the older generation that objected to the laundry, looking upon it with suspicion or positive hostility. On the other hand, among the younger generation, more thoroughly Americanized and open to new ideas, the wet-wash laundry was enthusiastically proclaimed a blessing. It was a satisfaction to have many women say that,

MILBANK MEMORIAL BATH, NEW YORK CITY The second floor will house the wet-wash laundry

although they had always been suspicious of wet-wash laundries, if the same association that conducted the Milbank Bath ran the laundry they would gladly patronize it.

For 35 cents, 30 pounds of family white wash will be called for, washed and returned within 24 hours. If the clothes are brought to the laundry, and, when washed, called for, the charge will be 25 cents.

November 14 is the date of the opening of the laundry. Visits of inspection by all who are interested in the undertaking will be welcomed.

P

ERHAPS in no department of municipal finance does greater diversity of practice exist than in methods of raising money for street improvements. Believing that a comparison of the practice of the large cities in this matter may help some municipalities to adopt the wiser methods of others, the following summary has been prepared. The information in each case may be regarded as authentic, since it has all been received by THE AMERICAN CITY during the last few months in reply to letters addressed to the tax assessors of cities having over 30,000 population. The subject will be considered under three heads: (1) the opening of new streets; (2) the paving of existing streets not previously paved; and (3) the widening of narrow streets.

Opening of New Streets

When new streets are opened, the method of financing the improvement is as follows in the cities named:

Akron, Ohio-City pays entire cost, by general tax levy or bonds.

Auburn, N. Y.-Cost is levied against all land benefited, and is payable in two annual instalments.

Augusta, Ga.-When a new street is opened up through a block for public convenience, cost is paid by the municipality. In new subdivisions of property, streets opened up by landowners and streets donated to the city for future care and maintenance, curbing and sidewalk cost are paid by abutting property owners and street paving is paid for by city. When majority of abutting property owners petition to have street paved, property on each side pays one-third and city remaining third.

Austin, Tex. The city pays cost of street intersections and one-fifth cost of frontage.

Bayonne, N. J.-City pays for all intersections, also cost of 50 feet of roadway adjacent to corner lots.

Binghamton, N. Y.-Assessment is levied against all property in the vicinity in which improvement is made.

Boston, Mass.-Benefits are assessed, the remainder of the necessary funds being obtained through the sale of municipal bonds.

Bridgeport, Conn.-Cost is levied against the abutting property.

Buffalo, N. Y.-Major portion of cost is levied against the abutting property; balance is spread upon the assessment district in proportion to the benefit received.

Butte, Mont.-Cost is levied against property in an extended area district that would be benefited, usually the center of the city and the territory beyond the street to be opened.

Cedar Rapids, Ia.-Owners of property in new additions pay entire cost, and then deed all streets to the city.

Charlotte, N. C.-Cost is levied against abutting property, except that of grading, curbing and street intersections, which is financed by the issuance of municipal bonds, payable one-tenth each year for ten years.

Chester, Pa.-Cost is levied against abutting property, except intersections and exempt property, for which the city pays.

Cleveland, Ohio-Prior to this year, cost was met by bond issue, no special assessment being levied against the abutting property. Under the amended Constitution of Ohio cities may levy 50 per cent of the cost of street openings against abutting property.

Colorado Springs, Col.-When opened by condemnation proceedings, damages, if any, are awarded abutter. Benefits are assessed, and city pays remaining cost over amount paid in benefit assessment.

Columbus, Ohio-City pays entire cost through municipal bond issue.

Davenport, Ia.-Usually one-half of cost is levied against abutting property, balance being paid out of the general fund.

Everett, Mass.-City pays entire cost by general tax levy.

Fall River, Mass.-Cost is levied against the property of entire city.

Fitchburg, Mass.-Cost is met by a construction loan and the assessment of one-half the cost upon abutters and others benefited.

Flint, Mich.-One-half of cost is levied against property benefited and one-half paid for by city at large.

Holyoke, Mass.-City pays entire cost by a general tax levy.

Houston, Tex.-Cost is levied against abutting property. Property owners have voluntarily given new streets.

Indianapolis, Ind.-Cost is levied against land in district benefited.

Jackson, Mich.-Cost is levied against abutting property.

Jacksonville, Fla.-Cost is met by city through special appropriation.

Jamestown, N. Y.-Cost of grading only levied against property owners, and after being put to grade, streets are deeded to the city, which finances remaining cost.

Kansas City, Mo.-Cost levied entirely against private property in a special benefit district, which usually extends half-way through the block on each side of the proposed street. If opening or widening has large cost or takes buildings, benefit district may extend any number of blocks. Each district is fixed by a jury, which awards damages and assesses benefits according to the merits of the case. Under this system the abutting property gets the heaviest benefit assessment.

Knoxville, Tenn.-Entire cost paid by city through a bond issue or appropriations from the general tax fund.

Lansing, Mich.-Cost is levied against the district to be improved, which district is determined by the city council.

Lancaster, Penn.-Cost is met out of general funds, except for laying pavements and curbs, which property owners pay.

Lawrence, Mass.-Owners of the land pay entire cost.

Lima, Ohio-Cost is levied against abutting property.

Lorain, Ohio-Cost is levied against the entire city through the general tax.

Louisville, Ky.-Cost is levied against abutting property for original construction.

Macon, Ga.-One-third of cost is levied against property owners; balance is met by bonds or appropriations from general fund. By law of taxes, one-eighth of the general fund is reserved for paving and improvements. Manchester, N. H.-City appropriates a certain amount each year for the purpose by direct taxation of all property.

Minneapolis Minn.-Cost is levied against abutting property..

Nashville, Tenn.-Two-thirds of the cost of grading and paving is levied against the abutting property. The city pays for property taken; the charter, however, gives the city the right to assess two-thirds of this cost to abutting property.

Newark, N. J.-Actual benefit as ascertained by a commission is assessed against property, which need not be abutting property. In practice, as a rule, the city bears from 17 to 25

per cent.

New Bedford, Mass.-Cost is generally met by appropriation from general funds.

New Rochelle, N. Y.-Cost is levied against the entire ward.

New York City.-Ordinarily the cost is paid by the abutting property wholly. When land is taken for public use, including the land for a street, the Supreme Court appoints three commissioners, who make the awards for the land taken. One of those commissioners acts as an assessment commisioner and assesses the benefits. In 1913 the Constitution was amended so that the law may be changed and awards for the property taken may be decided by a Justice of the Supreme Court sitting alone; the Constitution was also amended to provide for excess condemnation in proper cases. The enabling law is not yet passed.

When land is not taken for public use, assessments for benefits are made by the Board of Assessors, appointed by the Mayor. They assess for the first paving of the street, for its regulating, grading, curbing, sidewalks, sewers and for repaving. Ordinarily the area of benefit extends only halfway to the next street.

In regard to the repaving of streets there is now a distinction between different grades of pavements. If the pavement laid is of the best grade, known as Class A, then a repaving may not be assessed on the property benefited. If

the paving is of an inferior type, regarded as temporary, then the cost of repaving is assessed against the property benefited, just as if it were a paving for the first time. In other cases a repaving is not assessed.

Norfolk, Va.-The city proceeds by condemnation proceedings and pays the cost.

Oakland, Cal.-Cost is levied against district benefited, the district being fixed by city council.

Oklahoma City, Okla.-Cost is levied against abutting property, except where there may be tracts against which the front foot charge would be excessively high.

Omaha, Neb.-Cost is levied against abutting property, except occasionally, when onehalf is levied against abutting property and one-half paid out of general tax fund.

Pasadena, Cal.-Cost is levied against abutting property.

Passaic, N. J.-A portion of the cost is usually borne by the city, the abutting property being assessed for estimated benefits.

Peoria, Ill.-Cost is met by special assessment of all the territory chiefly benefited by the improvement.

Philadelphia, Pa.-City pays for the ground taken, and cost of paving, sewers and water. except at street intersections, is assessed against the abutting property.

Pittsburg, Pa.-A Board of Viewers decides whether property owners shall be charged full cost or only partial cost.

Portland, Me.-Abutting property is assessed for one-half cost of sidewalk and curbing; city pays all roadway paving. One-third cost of sewers is assessed against each of the abutters, remaining third paid by the city.

Portland, Ore.-Cost is levied against abutting property to center of block on each side of proposed street and extending beyond each end as far as deemed benefited.

Portsmouth, Va.-City pays cost out of general tax levy.

Providence, R. I.-Practice for many years has been for the city to pay the entire expense, although a law exists by which a portion may be assessed against the abutting property and other owners in the district deemed to be benefited.

Pueblo, Col.-Streets are opened by condemnation proceedings. Court appraisers assess benefits and damages; city pays its share.

Racine, Wis. All property within 500 feet is assessed 5 per cent of assessed valuation; within 1,000 feet. 3 per cent; balance of cost is met out of the general fund.

Richmond, Va.-City pays cost by means of general tax levy.

Rochester, N. Y.-Cost is levied against the abutting property in cases where such property receives all the benefits. When opened for the benefit of a large area, as a short cut to reach a central locality or to reach a street car line, all territory so benefited is included in the

assessment area.

St. Joseph, Mo.-All property in benefit dis

San Francisco, Cal.-Cost usually levied against the abutting property.

San José, Cal.-City pays the cost through the creation of an assessment district, the extent of the district determined by the local importance of the opening.

Scranton, Pa.-City pays entire cost.

Seattle, Wash.-Cost is usually levied against the abutting property, but is sometimes aided by the general fund, as in the case of wide streets or boulevards, the abutting property being assessed up to the cost of the regular width.

Sioux City, Ia.-Cost of all grading is paid for by general city levy.

Somerville, Mass.-One-half of cost is levied against abutter, remainder paid by the city. Spokane, Wash. Entire cost is levied against the abutting property.

Springfield, Mass.-Cost of streets opened by the city is borne by the city, and when opened by real estate companies it is borne by said companies.

Springfield, Mo.-The practice is to levy cost against abutting property, but occasionally a portion is paid by the city.

Springfield, Ohio.-City pays 2 per cent of cost and for street and alley intersections, remainder is levied against the abutting property.

Superior, Wis.-Abutting property is assessed for benefits accruing, assessment usually consisting of the cost of the improvement. In exceptional cases portion of the cost is paid by city at large.

Syracuse, N. Y.-Entire cost is levied against the abutting property.

Terre Haute, Ind.-Pavement cost is levied against abutting property, the remainder is met by general taxation.

Washington, D. C.-In opening streets the condemnation of the land is generally assessed against the abutting and surrounding property. Sidewalk and curbing, sewers and water pipes, are assessed against abutting property. The grading and paving of the roadway is paid out of the general fund; also the laying of macadam or asphalt and any repairs to the roadways.

Waterbury, Conn.-Two-thirds of the cost is levied against the abutting property owners, a third to each side of the street, the remaining third is paid by the city through direct taxation.

Wichita, Kan.-Entire cost is levied against abutting property.

Wilkes-Barre, Pa.-Cost of improvement is levied against abutting property up to the value of the betterment, and the excess is borne by the city.

Wilmington, Del.-The entire cost is paid by the city. The land is condemned for right of way and property owners are paid the sum determined by a condemnation commission.

York, Penn.-Cost is paid by the city from

streets.

The Paving of Existing Streets Not
Previously Paved

The answers received from tax assessors to the inquiry on this subject indicate also a wide variety of practice.

The cities which reported that, in the paving of a street not previously paved, the entire cost is assessed against the abutting property, and those which reported that the city pays the entire cost of such work, are respectively as follows:

Other reports on this subject, indicating variations in practice, are as follows:

Akron, Ohio-Entire cost, less intersections and 2 per cent, is charged to property.

Auburn, N. Y.-One-half of cost is assessed to abutting property and the other half is paid by the city at large.

Augusta, Ga.-If paved on city's initiative, paid for by city; if on petition of property owners, property on each side pays one-third.

Binghamton, N. Y.-One-half of cost is assessed to abutting property, the city defraying the balance.

Birmingham, Ala.-Street grading, paving, sidewalk and sewer costs are charged to abutting property.

Buffalo, N. Y.-Assessments are made prorata on the abutting property, with proper allowance for shallow and irregular shaped lots. The paving of intersections is divided pro-rata four ways from the corner half way in each block to the next intersecting street.

Butte, Mont.-Entire cost is levied against abutting property, including street and alley intersections. When cost is greater than 50 per cent of assessed valuation, council may assess property in an extended area district, but council has never done so.

Charleston, S. C.-One-half of cost is levied against abutting property (i. e., one-quarter on each side of street), and city pays one-half. Street railways pay for area between rails and 3 feet outside on each side before division of charge is made.