Chapter VIII (1)

THE PLAN OF CHICAGO: THE RESULT OF SYSTEMATIC STUDY: THE COST
INVOLVED IN CARRYING OUT THE WORK: THE PEOPLE ARE FINANCIALLY ABLE TO
REALIZE THE PLAN: THE ELEMENTS INVOLVED: HOW THE COST MAY BE DIVIDED:
THE FINAL RESULT.

The plan of Chicago as presented in illustration and text is the result of a systematic and comprehensive study, carried on during a period of thirty months, with the sole purpose of mapping out an ideal project for the physical development of this city. Perfection of detail is not claimed, but the design as a whole is placed before the public in the confident belief that it points the way to realize civic conditions of unusual economy, convenience, and beauty.

It is fully realized that a plan calling for improvements on a scale larger and more inclusive than any heretofore proposed seems, on first consideration, beyond the financial ability of the community. If, however, the plan meets public approval, it can be executed without seriously increasing present burdens. The very growth of the city, creating as it does wealth greater than mines can produce, gives a basis of bond issues in excess of the utmost cost involved in carrying out this plan. The increase in the assessed value of real estate in the city of Chicago for the past ten years exceeds the expense required to put the plan into execution; and at the same time the very character of the proposed changes is such as to stimulate the increase in wealth. The public, therefore, has the power to put the plan into effect if it shall determine to do so.

It is quite possible that some revision of existing laws may be necessary in order to enable the people to carry out this project; but this is clearly within the power of the people themselves. The realization of the plan, therefore, depends entirely on the strength of the public sentiment in its favor. And what hope is there that the people will desire to make Chicago an ideal city? A brief survey of the past will help to form an opinion on this subject.

Sixty years ago, when Chicago was scarcely more than a village, it became apparent that in order to secure proper drainage the street levels must be raised to a considerable extent throughout what we know as the old city, from the main river to Twelfth Street, and also for a distance on the West and North Sides. This project, albeit a very formidable one for that time, was promptly entered upon and duly carried out, although it involved raising all the streets and most of the buildings throughout that large territory. For that day and generation the undertaking was much more serious than the reconstruction of the city thoroughfares now proposed.

Again, some fifty years ago, when the idea of creating great metropolitan park areas was new, Chicago undertook to acquire and improve a chain of parks surrounding the city on three sides. This scheme, which has well supplied the needs of Chicago until recent times, was carried out in such a manner that it never was burdensome. The creation of a park system for Chicago was not undertaken from motives of utility, but purely because of a desire to make the city attractive; and the success was magnificent.

Later, in the Eighties, the purification of the water of Lake Michigan by the diversion of the sewage became a public issue. Once again the people of Chicago rose to the occasion; and after years of hard work the Drainage Canal, built at a cost of $60,000,000, has been completed.

Next came the World’s Fair, in the early Nineties, and here also a result was accomplished which has never been surpassed either in scope or in architectural beauty. The cost of the Fair (over $20,000,000 for grounds and buildings alone) was very large for that day. The fact that the Fair came into being here indicated that this people, generally regarded as a commercial community, were deeply appreciative of the higher forms of good order and municipal beauty.

The Chicago World’s Fair, like the raising of the grades of the city, the creation of a complete system of parks and boulevards, and the building of the Drainage Canal, went far beyond anything of the same kind ever before undertaken by a city. These four works are the greatest ones which have been achieved by Chicago. They have proved the readiness of the people to take up large schemes of public improvement which at the time of their inception required great foresight and great faith in the future. Two of them were demanded by considerations exclusively practical, while the other two were not so regarded, but on the other hand were the expression of the deeper sense in man of the value of delightful surroundings. If an accurate statement of the costs of the four improvements could be made, it would probably show that about equal sums have been spent on the practical and on the æsthetic side.

Besides the public enterprises mentioned, the people of Chicago, either collectively or as individuals, have established many agencies for the improvement of the intellectual, social, moral, and æsthetic conditions. The Chicago Orchestra occupies land and buildings on Michigan Avenue which have a present value of over a million and a quarter of dollars; and during the past twenty years private subscriptions have amounted to at least another million, all expended for an organization purely artistic. The Art Institute building in Grant Park cost $700,000, and since its completion, in 1893, it has never been closed for a day. Besides its large and excellent art school, there is a good collection of the works of old and modern masters, which is constantly receiving additions. The Crerar Library has an endowment fund of three and a half millions, besides a substantial building fund; and the Newberry Library and the Armour Institute of Technology are other worthy public benefactions.

Especially notable are the educational foundations which contribute so largely to the intellectual life of the city, and exert an influence throughout the Middle West,—Lake Forest University, Northwestern University, and the University of Chicago. The last-named institution, established in 1892, has already taken its place among the foremost universities in this country, not only by reason of its endowment and property (representing more than $23,000,000), but also because of wise administration along a well-considered plan.

Quite in accord with the plan of Chicago is the Benjamin Franklin Ferguson Monument Fund of a million dollars, the income of which is available for defraying the cost of statuary commemorating worthy men and women of America, or important events in American history, to be erected in the parks and boulevards of the city, under the direction of the trustees of the Art Institute. The Field Museum, representing gifts aggregating $9,000,000, is a further instance of loyalty to the city and a desire for its improvement.

Such enterprises and such gifts as those enumerated show what may be expected from individual benefactions as wealth increases and the idea of public service is encouraged. When opportunities for enriching the city are provided, individual citizens rise to the occasion, and find true satisfaction in leaving memorials useful or agreeable to the people.

Mere increase in numbers does not warrant the belief that public sentiment in favor of extensive public works will grow in proportion to the population; but the history of the past does prove that the people of Chicago are always ready and anxious to follow when the way to great benefits is plainly open. We believe that the tendency which the community has shown by its acts points hopefully to the adoption of a great scheme of public improvement. In other words, Chicago having already carried out large projects strictly on the lines of this report, may we not, therefore, confidently expect this people to go on doing as they have done?

There is a still stronger reason for the belief that the public will favor such a plan as is herein presented. It lies in the growing love of good order, due to the advance in education. Every one knows that the civic conditions which prevailed fifty years ago would not now be tolerated anywhere; and every one believes that conditions of to-day will not be tolerated by the men who shall follow us. This must be so, unless progress has ceased. The education of a community inevitably brings about a higher appreciation of the value of systematic improvement, and results in a strong desire on the part of the people to be surrounded by conditions in harmony with the growth of good taste; and as fast as the people can be brought to see the advantage to them of more orderly arrangement of the streets, transportation lines, and parks, it is well-nigh certain that they will bring about such desirable ends. Thus do the dreams of to-day become the commonplaces of to-morrow; and what we now deem fanciful will become mere matter-of-fact to the man of the future.

If the plan as a whole be approved by the majority of our citizens because it is found to be both practical and beautiful, the next question is as to what it commits us. In answering this query a general review of the principal elements composing the plan will be of value. The following list comprises the main items:

_First._ The improvement of the Lake front.

_Second._ The creation of a system of highways outside the city.

_Third._ The improvement of railway terminals, and the development of a complete traction system for both freight and passengers.

_Fourth._ The acquisition of an outer park system, and of parkway circuits.

_Fifth._ The systematic arrangement of the streets and avenues within the city, in order to facilitate the movement to and from the business district.

_Sixth._ The development of centers of intellectual life and of civic administration, so related as to give coherence and unity to the city.

The improvement of the Lake front from Winnetka to the Indiana line is an economic necessity. As has been stated, the aggregate of the waste material seeking dumping ground on the Lake shore because that is the cheapest place to deposit it, is not less than one million cubic yards per annum. This material is sufficient to produce annually from twenty-seven to thirty acres of land if used to build the Lake parkways and park strips herein recommended. The park authorities would only have to furnish breakwaters and bridges and to finish the grounds. The utilization of this material in thirty years would produce all the Lake front land recommended in the report for the region between Grant and Jackson parks. But long before the expiration of the thirty years the amount of filling urgently seeking the Lake front dump will be enormously increased. This dirt should be utilized for the public benefit, instead of being wasted as at present in the open Lake, where it becomes detrimental to health and an interference to navigation. The dirt to be disposed of in building new traction tunnels under the principal streets of the city will go far toward the completion of the new Lake shore parks. It is evident, therefore, that this improvement, involving the redemption of the entire Lake front from Winnetka to the Indiana state line, and the creation of an extremely beautiful and useful public recreation ground, will involve very little public expense. There can be no doubt that this part of the plan of Chicago will be carried through; and in fact much is already being accomplished along these lines.

The interurban highway system can be realized very cheaply. Ninety-five per cent of the necessary roads now exist as public highways, and the cost of acquiring the other five per cent will be merely nominal. The diagram (Plate XL) is laid out with a radius of approximately sixty miles from the city hall. The cost of widening that comparatively small portion of the roadways which require to be widened; the straightening of the few which need such treatment; the planting of trees along the highways; and the macadamizing of the roads are improvements that may be hastened by concerted intelligent action. The expense involved is comparatively small, but the economy and convenience to the public are very large. Is it not evident that this portion of the plan can be realized at no distant day provided a strong organization of active men shall be formed for the purpose of carrying it into effect?

The suggestions in regard to trunk lines, their rights-of-way, stations, and general conditions, are many and serious. The suggestions have been made for the purpose of bringing about the greatest economy of money and time, both in freight and passenger handling. If the recommendations herein contained will produce conditions really beneficial to the individual shipper and passenger, undoubtedly they will be found best for the railroads themselves. The direct object in view is to free a large portion of the South Side from tracks and stations and restore it to business use; to double the capacity of the streets of the whole city by opening circulation to the north, west, and south, and by connecting the outlying parts in the best possible manner with the heart of the city. Over and above all these considerations, highly important as they all are, is economy in the freight handling of Chicago as a shipping center. The object here has been to find that general principle which, if applied, will give to the merchants, manufacturers, and jobbers of this city all the advantages that should naturally be theirs throughout the great territory dominated by Chicago. If the general scheme herein proposed shall not be adopted by the public and the railroads, some other inevitably must be, because the very life of the community is involved in the solution of this problem. The commercial prosperity of the community is represented by the cost per ton of handling freight into and out of this territory as a shipping center. General changes in railroad conditions take years to accomplish. That will be the case if such a scheme as we recommend is carried out; but the public should remember that they will not be taxed to pay for it. When these improvements come they will be railroad enterprises, undertaken by the railroads and carried out by the railroads.

The traction recommendations contained in this report are already in progress, and no question need be raised as to whether or not this portion of work will be carried out. It has practically been decided upon, and no doubt will be accomplished. The cost will be borne in part by the traction lines themselves, and partly by the public.

The additional parks and parkways recommended are extensive, as should be the case. Although it is true that the men of forty years ago did devise a scheme which has been sufficient almost up to the present moment, it is also true that the number, location, and arrangement of the parks and parkways of Chicago to-day are entirely inadequate for its future development; and nothing is suggested in this report except what has seemed to be absolutely required. Fifty years ago, before population had become dense in certain portions of the city, people could live without parks; but we of to-day cannot. We now regard the promotion of robust health of body and mind as necessary public duties, in order that the individual may be benefited, and that the community at large may possess a higher average degree of good citizenship. And after all has been said, good citizenship is the prime object of good city planning. In some locations parks and parkways are sufficient to accommodate the people in the immediate neighborhoods; other sections of this city, and suburbs which will soon become parts of this city, should be equally well provided. “Nature,” says President Charles W. Eliot, “is the greatest factor in the continuous education of man and woman.” The extensive woodlands proposed are an addition not usually designed for American cities, although almost invariably used in Europe. The cost of these added parks and woodlands will be considerable, and it must be borne by the public; but it is a sane proposition that the people of Chicago and its suburbs should have the sixty thousand acres of wooded territory as well as the great Bow, (Plate CIII) which will occupy from six to eight hundred additional acres. The acquisition and completion of an outer park system may easily be carried through in ten years; and if the cost shall be distributed over that period of time, it will not prove burdensome. The returns will come in the shape of increase of health and joy of living for all the people; and incidentally the value of every real estate holding in the city will be enhanced.

The land necessary for the civic center should be secured at once, while values at the point proposed are reasonable. For the time being this land may be treated as park space; but the sites and the general scheme of grouping for the buildings should be approved, so that as the city, the county, and the general government outgrow their present structures, the new ones may take their appointed places, each one contributing its part to an orderly and convenient scheme. The adoption of such a scheme would save a very large amount of money in the purchase of public building sites; and would create stability in real estate values. To the West Side especially the development of a civic center along the lines indicated is a matter of prime importance; for it will give to that portion of the city the needed impetus towards higher standards than now prevail there. At the same time it will benefit all other parts of the city, since it is for the advantage of Chicago as a whole that each portion shall be developed equally with every other portion. The cost of the civic center should be paid by the whole community.

The street plan as laid out involves a very considerable amount of money; but it will be found that in Chicago as in other cities, the opening of new thoroughfares, although involving large initial expense, creates an increase in values, due to increase in convenience and the provision for adequate sites for the increasing retail traffic of the city. The cost will amount to many millions of dollars, but the result will be continuous prosperity for all who dwell here; and such prosperity the city cannot have unless it becomes a convenient and pleasant place in which to live.

Finally, it seems probable that the schemes of outer highways and of all the Lake front improvements may come about quite naturally and with very little expense to the city; that the railways will pay most of the expense of their changes and improvements, thus leaving a portion of the cost of the traction system and all of the cost of the civic center, of the parks and parkways, and of the street development for the general public to meet. The community has ample financial ability to do its part without placing undue burdens upon the people. Paris had not much more than half a million people, and her commercial prospects were far less than are ours to-day, when that municipality adopted a street improvement scheme involving over two hundred and sixty million dollars, and carried it to completion in thirty-five years. The motive of the French people in undertaking this enterprise was to create a great attraction for all men: a city so delightful as to insure continuous prosperity to the inhabitants. The success of the undertaking has amply justified the pains and the expense. People from all over the world visit and linger in Paris. No matter where they make their money, they go there to spend it; and every proprietor and workman in Paris benefits by reason of that fact. Conditions in Chicago are such as to repel outsiders and drive away those who are free to go. The cream of our own earnings should be spent here, while the city should become a magnet, drawing to us those who wish to enjoy life. The change would mean prosperity, effective, certain, and forever continuous.

If, therefore, the plan is a good one, its adoption and realization will produce for us conditions in which business enterprises can be carried on with the utmost economy, and with the certainty of successful issue, while we and our children can enjoy and improve life as we cannot now do. Then our own people will become home-keepers, and the stranger will seek our gates.

From the group by Lorado Taft.]

LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE PLAN OF CHICAGO

The following opinion, prepared by WALTER L. FISHER, as counsel for the Plan Committee of the Commercial Club, has been submitted to EDWARD J. BRUNDAGE, Corporation Counsel for the City of Chicago, HARRY A. LEWIS, County Attorney of Cook County, BENJAMIN F. RICHOLSON, Attorney for the West Chicago Park Commissioners, CHARLES A. CHURAN, Attorney for the Commissioners of Lincoln Park, ROBERT REDFIELD, Attorney for the South Park Commissioners, to EDGAR B. TOLMAN, FRANK L. SHEPARD, HARRY S. MECARTNEY, FRANK HAMLIN, and R. P. HOLLETT, who have been counsel for these official bodies, respectively, and to MILTON J. FOREMAN, Member of the City Council of Chicago, and GEORGE A. MASON, Special Assessment Attorney for the City, all of whom concur in the conclusions and recommendations stated. WILLIAM W. CASE assisted in the preparation of the opinion.

LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE PLAN OF CHICAGO

BY WALTER L. FISHER, OF THE CHICAGO BAR

INTRODUCTORY

The purpose of an inquiry into the legal aspects of the Plan of Chicago is to ascertain to what extent and in what manner the Plan can be carried out under the existing laws, to suggest such additional legislation as may be necessary or desirable, and to consider how far such legislation is controlled or prevented by existing constitutional provisions. It is gratifying to be able to state at the outset that the main structure of the Plan of Chicago is framed with due regard to the limitations imposed by law upon public enterprises, although important details cannot be carried into effect without some aid from the legislature.

In considering the legal aspects of city planning in the United States, the first inquiry naturally relates to the limitations contained in the state and federal constitutions. Governmental powers in the United States, unlike those of many European countries, are defined by written constitutions, which would undoubtedly prevent the imitation here of some of the sweeping undertakings and arbitrary though effective methods of European city planning. European governments have carried to a successful issue many wide-reaching reforms which could be undertaken in this country only with important modifications. It is these modifications with which we are chiefly concerned. A Prussian statute enacted in 1902 empowered the police authorities to prohibit advertising which was calculated to disfigure the landscape;[27] and a provision of the Prussian Code declares that no building shall be so erected as to disfigure cities and public places.[28] Regulations intended to maintain the suburban character of certain localities have been upheld in Prussia, in the absence of statute, as sanitary measures within the jurisdiction of the police authorities, and in other German cities they are authorized by law.[29] The State of Illinois, in attempting to follow such examples, would be obliged to reckon not only with that provision of her own constitution which forbids the taking of private property for public use without just compensation, but also with that other provision, found both in her own constitution and in that of the United States, which declares that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law. In England, as long ago as 1862, the Metropolitan Local Management Act authorized the Board of Public Works to fix building lines to which all new buildings must conform, and to prohibit the erection of any house beyond the general line of buildings in any street in which the same is situated.[30] Compensation is allowed to any owner of property who can show himself to be injured by such restrictions upon the use of his land, but the parliamentary fiat determines forever that he must submit to the regulations thus imposed upon him. In this country the owner, even if compensation were provided, could demand the judgment of a court whether the use for which his property was taken was a “public use,” within the judicial definition of that phrase as found in our constitutions. In Illinois he could insist upon his further constitutional privilege of having his compensation fixed by a jury before the restriction became operative. The public authorities of Paris, when condemning land for municipal purposes, were authorized to and did take more extensive areas than were actually needed, seeking by this means to recoup the cost of the improvements by selling the adjacent premises at the enhanced values produced by these improvements. Indeed, the contractors for these public works were themselves authorized, in some cases, to acquire considerable areas outside the lines of the actual improvement, so that the prospective profits thus to be realized might be deducted from the cost of the improvement to the public.[31] Governments in this country are forbidden by constitutional principles thus to take private property against the will of the owner merely for pecuniary profit. Many cities in Great Britain and on the continent have removed the entire population of insanitary districts and have constructed new dwellings, at public expense, in the renovated area. Such features figure largely in the town-planning schemes of Europe, but have been considered inexpedient or unnecessary here. The town-planning bill introduced in Parliament last year by John Burns not only confers power upon municipal authorities to impose a town-planning scheme on any land within or near their boundaries, but enables the authorities to take judgment against the owners of neighboring property for the amount by which its value is enhanced through the operation of the plan. Such methods of procedure, however justifiable from an economic point of view, would be contrary to established public policy in this country. The constitution of Illinois requires uniformity of taxation with respect to both persons and property, and while it permits the cost of local improvements to be assessed by the authorities of cities, towns and villages upon property specially benefited thereby, it not only limits the aggregate amount of such special assessments to the cost of the improvement, but requires the distribution of that aggregate over all property similarly benefited.

While, therefore, in every civilized country the makers of laws strive to protect private property and private rights from spoliation and abuse, it remains true that extensive municipal and governmental works are more quickly and easily executed in those parts of the world where the legislative authorities have a free hand than they can be under a system of rigid constitutional restraints. Those vast projects which have created the modern city of Paris and are transforming London and many continental cities would necessarily follow different channels in this country; yet there is every reason to believe that the constitutional limitations which here determine the form of public improvements do not really prohibit any measures that in this country would be considered wise. It will be found that the restraints of the fundamental law under which we live do not forbid any of the steps recommended in the proposed Plan of Chicago, although in many important respects they do fix and control the manner in which, and the means by which, these steps can be taken. The state, and its agent, the municipal corporation, are fully empowered to protect and to promote the public welfare, and for that purpose have been vested with the three great functions of government known as the police power, the power of eminent domain, and the power of taxation, in one or another of which will be found adequate authority for the accomplishment of the Plan.

The police power has been characterized by the Supreme Court of Illinois as “that inherent plenary power in the state which permits it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, welfare and safety of society.”[32] Avoiding too rigid an exactness of definition, the courts have described it in terms which are said to be summed up in the statement that “the police power, in its broadest acceptation, means the general power of a government to preserve and promote the public welfare by prohibiting all things hurtful to the comfort, safety and welfare of society, and establishing such rules and regulations for the conduct of all persons, and the use and management of all property, as may be conducive to the public interest.”[33] It is only under the police power that men can be required to submit to the destruction or appropriation of their property without monetary recompense for the loss.[34]

In the exercise of the power of eminent domain, the state may take private property, but only for a “public use” and only upon payment of just compensation. No man can, in this country, be required to surrender his property, even for full value, unless the use for which it is taken is public. The right assumed by some European governments to condemn large areas of land in order, by selling part of it, to defray the cost of improving the rest, would be subject in this country to the inquiry whether such a purpose is “public,” within the meaning of that term as expounded by the courts. No judge grounded in the principles of American jurisprudence would countenance the argument that mere pecuniary advantage to a municipality could, without other pretext, justify the taking of private property against the will of the owner. It is quite another question, however, whether the condemnation of more land than is directly involved may not be justified as an incident of a public improvement, when it could not be defended as an independent speculation.

The last of the three governmental powers mentioned is the power of taxation. Like the power of eminent domain, it is inherent in every sovereign state, but no taxes can be levied for other than public purposes. They may be general, representing the tribute due from every person to the government which protects him; or special, measured or limited by the particular benefit accruing to his property from a local improvement. The cost of public works may be paid for outright from the proceeds of a single levy or assessment, or may be defrayed from the proceeds of bonds to be liquidated by annual contributions distributed over a term of years. The constitution of Illinois requires provision to be made for paying all municipal bonds within twenty years, and limits the amount of indebtedness which any municipal body may incur to five per cent of the assessed value of taxable property therein; but does not impose any general limitation upon the amount or rate of taxes which municipal bodies may be authorized to levy.

Such is a brief characterization of the three functions of government upon which chiefly depends the execution of public enterprises in this country. The Plan of Chicago, now under consideration, embraces as its leading features the acquisition, maintenance, and control of parks, boulevards and arteries of communication throughout the metropolitan territory tributary to Chicago; the establishment and control of similar parks, circuits and avenues within the city itself, and incidentally the reclamation of slums and congested areas; the embellishment of the shore of Lake Michigan; the consolidation and rearrangement of freight and passenger terminals; and the creation of a Civic Center connected with other parts of the city by convenient avenues, and in or about which shall be grouped important public buildings which may hereafter be erected.

OUTER PARKS, BOULEVARDS, AND CIRCUITS

The outer belt of parks and forest preserves, the boulevards and highways connecting country towns with each other and with the city, and the extension of a driveway around the shore of Lake Michigan, involve relations with counties outside of Cook, and even with states beyond the borders of Illinois. It may safely be assumed, without specific inquiry, that the laws of Wisconsin and Indiana, if not already adequate to the performance of their share in the project, can easily be made so by the people of those states.

In Illinois the existing laws are in the main sufficient for the needs of local communities which desire, by the exercise of their present taxing powers or the organization of park districts, to bear their part in a general scheme of improvement. The Act of June 19, 1893,[35] provides for the incorporation of park districts to connect two or more cities or villages by means of boulevards or parks. A more comprehensive measure is the Act of June 24, 1895,[36] under which several park districts in Cook County, such as those at Winnetka, Kenilworth, Wilmette and Rogers Park, have been organized by vote of the people of those communities. A district formed under this act may acquire land for parks or boulevards by purchase or condemnation, and the board of park commissioners may accept from any municipality in the district the control of any park or boulevard therein. Bonds may be issued up to three per cent of the assessed valuation of property in the district, and, in addition to taxes for the payment thereof, a general tax of four mills on the dollar may be collected. Special assessments for local improvements may be levied through the township authorities. Districts bordering upon navigable bodies of water are empowered to reclaim submerged lands, and the title of the state is granted for that purpose to the park district to which such submerged land is adjacent. The park authorities could construct islands or driveways beyond the present water line. They would be required to recompense the owners of the shore for any loss or diminution of their riparian rights; but the benefits to the shore lands would doubtless in many, if not most, instances more than offset the cost of the property and property rights that would be taken or damaged for the improvement.

Among local agencies which might co-operate in suburban development may be mentioned the townships. These have long exercised jurisdiction over country roads, and they were authorized by two Acts of March 2, 1907,[37] to secure small parks by purchase or condemnation and upon vote of the people to issue bonds and levy taxes for that purpose. No park so established can be more than ten acres in extent.

Such limited local authorities may prove serviceable auxiliaries to the main plan, but their powers are inadequate to the execution of the more general features of metropolitan development; nor would it be just to impose on local tax-payers the entire burden of such improvements as the acquisition of extensive areas of park or woodland chiefly for the resort and recreation of the people of the city. These enterprises require the co-operation of a central body of more extensive powers and larger resources.

In looking for instrumentalities through which such plans might be executed, the park legislation of Massachusetts claims first attention. The Metropolitan Park Commission, under whose auspices the city and suburban park system of Boston has been developed, was created by an act of the legislature of Massachusetts, approved June 3, 1893.[38] It consists of five members, appointed by the governor, and exercises jurisdiction over Boston and various other cities and towns which constitute the Metropolitan Parks District. The board has power to acquire and maintain open spaces, taking in fee or otherwise any land necessary for that purpose, and acting so far as may be in consultation with local boards. Any open space in a city or town may be turned over to the board by the local authorities. Subsequent acts empower the commission to construct roadways and boulevards, to purchase or condemn land for that purpose, and to assess property specially benefited thereby. The commissioners are authorized to abandon land which they have acquired, thereby revesting title in the original owner and reducing the damages which he might otherwise justly claim. Authority is also given to sell, at public or private sale, any lands or rights acquired and paid for. Property taken by the commission vests in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and is to be paid for by state bonds extending over a term of not more than forty years. Taxes to meet the bonds are, however, apportioned among the cities and towns within the district, and a reapportionment is to be made once in five years. By an Act of March 17, 1903, the commission and the park officers in any city or town were empowered to make reasonable rules and regulations respecting the display of signs or advertisements visible from public parks and parkways; but the Supreme Court, in the case of _Commonwealth_ v. _Boston Advertising Co._, 188 Mass. 348, held that this statute did not and could not confer upon the public authorities any power to prohibit the owners of land from leasing it for advertising purposes, unless just compensation were provided.

The Metropolitan Park Commission is a creature of the state—not of the particular communities directly affected—and over its fortunes the legislature has maintained a constant fostering care, extending and defining its jurisdiction by successive acts, and granting fresh financial powers as occasion arose. Local home rule is a political principle not so firmly established there as in Illinois. Here it would not be feasible to create a similar body by legislative fiat without the concurring vote of the people of the district over which its jurisdiction extended. Legislation designed for similar ends is more likely, in this state, to take the general form of enlargement of the powers and functions of the city and the county; or, especially if more than one county is involved, of the creation of a special commission endowed with extraordinary powers and similar in many of its features to the forest-preserve districts contemplated by the Act approved May 18, 1905.[39]

This measure, which is entitled “An Act to provide for the creation of forest-preserve districts,” authorizes the incorporation as a forest-preserve district of any area of contiguous territory containing one or more cities, towns, or villages within the same or adjoining counties. Such a district can only be organized by the affirmative vote of the inhabitants; and if it embraces parts of two counties, there must be a favorable vote in each. The affairs of the district are to be managed by a president and six commissioners, appointed by the governor and drawn from different political parties. The president alone receives a salary. The board is authorized to accept control of streets in any city, town, or village on request of the local authorities, and to designate existing streets and roads as pleasure driveways, and lay out and establish others for that purpose; but none of these is to be within any public park district. Power is given to acquire, by gift, purchase, or condemnation, any land not already in a park district for driveways and forest preserves. Bonds may be issued to the amount of one per cent of the assessed value of all property in the district, and this amount may be increased by a vote of the people to three per cent. Authority is given to levy taxes for the payment of bonds and interest thereon, and also to levy for general purposes an additional tax not exceeding one mill on the dollar.

An attempt was made under this act to organize as a forest-preserve district all of Cook County, except a few towns in the extreme north and south ends thereof. It received a majority of the votes cast on the proposition, but not a majority of those cast at the regular election held on the same day. This has left some doubt as to the legal effect of the vote. The result was largely due to indifference and to the creation of a new taxing body with what were regarded by many as unnecessarily extensive powers. A committee of the legislature was appointed to report a revised act more consonant with the wishes of the people. Among the changes which have been suggested are that each district shall be confined to a single county; that the members of the commission shall be appointed by the president of the county board; and that taxes for the purposes contemplated by the act shall not be levied by the district authorities themselves but by the board of county commissioners. The proposed forest-preserve districts are essentially park districts, though called by a different name; and the main objects of this act might be accomplished by creating a forest-preserve commission as a department of the county government, under appropriate legislation—a method certainly less open to attack from a legal point of view than the one embodied in the Forest-Preserve Act of 1905.[40]

Counties in Illinois have under existing law no general powers which would enable them to take a prominent part in plans for the development of the metropolitan district of Chicago; but it would be competent for the legislature to invest them with more extensive functions. There is in the constitution no limit upon the amount of county taxes which may be voted by the people; and county bonds, when authorized by popular vote, may be issued for any authorized county purpose up to the constitutional limit of five per cent of the assessed value of taxable property in the county.

In an inventory of the agencies which might be capable of sharing in the creation of outer parks and boulevards, mention should not be omitted of a Greater City of Chicago, which might be invested by the legislature with power to purchase or condemn land far beyond its own corporate limits in order to establish a system of parks and boulevards commensurate with the needs of its inhabitants.[41] Some doubt has been suggested as to the constitutionality of such a grant of power if attempted under the so-called Chicago charter amendment to the state constitution,[42] which authorizes “a special charter of local municipal government for the territory now or hereafter embraced within the limits of the city of Chicago.” The effective policing by the city of parks and boulevards outside the city limits would present practical difficulties, and the plan would impose upon the city the entire cost of improvements in the advantages of which the suburban districts in which these improvements were located would share. If all of the people and property benefited are to bear their proportionate share of the expense, the proposed system of outer parks and boulevards should be acquired and controlled by the county or by a new municipal body.

CITY PARKS, SQUARES, BOULEVARDS, AND AVENUES

The existing municipal corporations that might be authorized to bear a part in realizing the Plan within the city limits are the city of Chicago, the county of Cook, and the several park boards. Any participation by the Sanitary District, as by bridging its canals or improving the appearance of their banks, would be incidental.

City councils are empowered by Article V of the City and Village Act of 1872 to lay out, establish, open, widen, pave, and otherwise improve streets, alleys, avenues, parks, and public grounds, and to plant trees upon and regulate the use of the same.[43] In the case of _Thompson_ v. _Highland Park_, 187 Ill. 265, the court sustained the power of the city to include parkways and grass plots in the improvement of a street to be paid for by special assessment. The special Act of May 18, 1905,[44] relating to the city of Chicago only, confers upon the council power to acquire, by purchase or otherwise, municipal parks and playgrounds, and declares that the city may exercise the right of eminent domain for the acquirement of property useful, advantageous, or desirable for municipal purposes; and that the procedure in such cases shall be, as nearly as may be, like that provided for in the Act of June 14, 1897, concerning local improvements as amended or to be amended. Land taken for a park is “property useful, advantageous, or desirable for municipal purposes,” and a public park is a “local improvement,” the cost of which may be assessed upon contiguous property to the extent of the special benefits when the legislature authorizes that course to be pursued.[45] The “Act concerning local improvements”[46] directs the city council to provide, in any ordinance for a local improvement, whether it shall be made by special assessment or special taxation, or by general taxation, or otherwise; and, in sections 13 to 33, inclusive, defines the procedure for ascertaining the compensation to be paid for private property taken or damaged, and for assessing the cost on other property to the extent to which it is specially benefited. The city, therefore, already possesses power to acquire public parks within the city limits and to assess the cost, or the greater part thereof, against property in the neighborhood of the improvement. Under the present law all ordinances for local improvements in the city, to be paid for wholly or in part by special assessment or special taxation, must originate with the board of local improvements; but if the park boards were merged in the city government, it might be feasible to grant to an administrative department of parks the initiative with respect to local improvements within their special jurisdiction.[47] The city authorities have now ample power, to the extent of their financial resources, to improve and widen existing streets and to open new streets, parks and public grounds. The city council has adequate discretion to determine how wide any street shall be, and whether it shall be devoted entirely to travel or given up partly to lawns, trees, and parkways.

It is highly important that the city should be able effectively to control the traffic on streets and boulevards, and especially to keep designated residence streets free from heavy teaming or particular kinds of traffic (such as through teaming, not going to or from property fronting on the particular street), without formally turning such streets over to park authorities as boulevards. This power may be given by the 96th paragraph of Section 1 of Article V of the statute in relation to cities, villages, and towns,[48] which authorizes the city council to “direct, license, and control all wagons and other vehicles conveying loads within the city, or any particular class of such wagons or other vehicles.” If more specific authority is required, it should be obtained from the legislature. The streets are held by the city in trust for the general public and cannot be diverted from that purpose by the city without special authority.[49] The legislature, however, as representative of the public, has control over them, and may limit the public right to make free use of streets; as it actually has done in the statute authorizing the wheel tax.[50] It may authorize municipal authorities to designate certain streets as pleasure driveways, to the exclusion of heavy traffic,[51] or to turn over any of its streets to park boards for boulevard and driveway purposes;[52] but the city cannot, without legislative authority, divest itself of the control of a street nor restrict the public in the reasonable use and enjoyment thereof.[53] General authority has been conferred upon city councils to regulate the use of streets, but this provision of the statute cannot safely be relied upon as an unqualified delegation of power to set aside some streets for exclusive use as pleasure driveways, since the Act of March 27, 1889,[54] expressly empowers the municipal authorities of a city or village to select for that purpose _not more than two streets_ within the corporate limits. This doubt the legislature should be asked to set at rest.

The narrow scope of the powers of Cook County has already been commented upon. While counties could not, under the present constitution, be authorized to pay for improvements by special assessment, the general assembly might empower the county board to purchase or condemn land within or without the city limits for parks or other public uses, the cost to be paid from the proceeds of any bond issues which the people might see fit to vote within the five per cent limit of indebtedness. A park commission or forest-preserve commission, established as an administrative department of the county government, would be an appropriate agency for carrying out these objects.

The only park authorities now exercising any considerable jurisdiction within the city limits are the South Park Commissioners, the West Chicago Park Commissioners and the Commissioners of Lincoln Park, all of which were incorporated by the legislature in the year 1869 for the purpose of acquiring certain specific parks and boulevards. They have received additional powers from time to time. The West Chicago Park Commissioners, within whose jurisdiction the proposed Civic Center would lie, were authorized by the Act of 1869 to purchase or condemn the land described therein, and to levy special assessments for that purpose. The Act of April 9, 1879,[55] as amended, gives every board of park commissioners power to connect its parks or boulevards with any part of a city, town, or village by taking any appropriate street with the consent of the corporate authorities and of the owners of a majority of the frontage. In 1885 park boards were authorized to accept from municipal authorities any parks under their control.[56] The Act of May 10, 1901,[57] empowers every park board to acquire, by purchase or condemnation, as many small parks, not exceeding ten acres each, as it desires and can pay for.

By the Act of March 4, 1907,[58] even more extensive powers are conferred upon the commissioners of every public park district appointed or selected pursuant to any act which has been or may be submitted to the legal voters of such park district and by them adopted. Full power is given to purchase or condemn any land for the establishment of new parks or the extension of old parks, and, by vote of the people, to issue bonds to any desired amount within the constitutional limit. This act materially increases the powers of the boards to which it applies. The West Park board is within its terms; and may, upon favorable vote of the people of the district, bond itself up to the constitutional limit; and it can probably also levy special assessments under authority of the Act of June 24, 1895,[59] to pay for property condemned for park purposes.

Land for the proposed Civic Center might be acquired through any one of several agencies. The city of Chicago, if financially able, could purchase the necessary area, or condemn it and assess back part of the expense on real estate in the vicinity. Any portion of the cost not raised by special assessment would have to be defrayed from the proceeds of bonds, which, under the constitution, must be redeemable within twenty years, and must not increase the indebtedness of the city beyond five per cent of the assessed value of property therein. Additional borrowing powers may be conferred upon the city through consolidation of various local authorities with the city under the so-called charter amendment to the state constitution, or through a change in the statutory method of fixing the assessed valuation of property. Appropriate legislation should be enacted at once in order to make land thus acquired available not only for city buildings or park purposes, but for the location of the buildings of other public bodies, upon financial and other terms to be fixed by negotiation with the city.[60]

The county of Cook, though now lacking the necessary powers, might be authorized by the legislature to acquire, with the proceeds of a bond issue, the requisite area for the Civic Center, and to make appropriate arrangements for the location therein of federal and city buildings and other public edifices.

The West Park board might well be asked to treat the Civic Center as a legitimate object for the exercise of its functions, and with that end in view it should be invested by the legislature with powers adequate to the immediate acquisition of the land embraced in the proposed Civic Center, and should be authorized to arrange appropriate terms for the future occupation of part of the area by the buildings of other governmental and public bodies; among which terms might be the reimbursement of part of the original cost.

Among the agencies which might be created to carry out this and other features of the Plan should, perhaps, be mentioned a municipal corporation organized along the lines indicated by the forest-preserve legislation already alluded to. The Act of 1905[61] permitted cities and villages to be included in a forest-preserve district, and the city of Chicago was included within the boundaries of the proposed district the creation of which was submitted to popular vote. Section 6 of that act, providing for the designation of streets as pleasure driveways, specified that none of them should fall within any park district, and that no preserves should be within the limits of a park district. The legislature may have power to eliminate such restrictions, and to sanction the incorporation of a metropolitan board capable of exercising all the powers of a park commission within and without the city limits.