Image
Copyright & Fair-use Agreement
UNLV Special Collections provides copies of materials to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. Material not in the public domain may be used according to fair use of copyrighted materials as defined by copyright law. Please cite us.
Please note that UNLV may not own the copyright to these materials and cannot provide permission to publish or distribute materials when UNLV is not the copyright holder. The user is solely responsible for determining the copyright status of materials and obtaining permission to use material from the copyright holder and for determining whether any permissions relating to any other rights are necessary for the intended use, and for obtaining all required permissions beyond that allowed by fair use.
Read more about our reproduction and use policy.
I agree.Information
Digital ID
Permalink
Details
Member of
More Info
Rights
Digital Provenance
Publisher
Transcription
las Vegas, Nev*, June 5, 19X4. Mr. H.C. Nutt, Pre#,, L.V.L.fc.W. Co., I.o» Angel ee, Cal. Dear Sir: Acknowledging your letter of June 4th with incloeure from F.A. Waters concerning appraisement of Company lots, I beg to explain the prices as suggested by me and spoken of in Mr. Water* © letter as follows: In reference to lots 30 and 31 in block 4, I made no change in the price of those lots for tw> reasons. First, $600.00 is a high price for those lots as the business dose not seem to be drifting that way on First street and there are no sidewalks constructed on that side of the street. deferring to lots in block 19$ lot 5 is a much more desirable lot than 7 and 8 as it is located on this side of the large store room of Petty's Jewelry Store, which, at present, seems to be the dividing line of business houses and I did increase the price of 7 and 8 which are on the other side of this store room $100.00 each. In reference to lot 32 in block 16, the price was raised on that lot simply because it is a corner lot and all corner lots have, at all time, been priced higher than the inside lots and I believe it was an error when getting out the former price list to price this lot 32 at the same price as other inside lots in that blook. Referring to the price of lots in block 17, there was no change made in those prices yet I believe a price of #550.00 should apply to those corner lots the same as in block IV, but as they had formerly been priced at $750.00, I did not care to reduce them. 1 agree with Mr. Waters that the relative values are the same as both 16 and 17 are in the Red Light district. Referring to lots 10 and 11 in blook 28, I increased the price of those lots $50.00 as I believe they are easily wofcth that much more since the oonstruotion of our new County Courthouse and considering the fact that there is a large eight apartment rooming house being constructed on lots 1 to 4 in block 28 I think they are worth it. Hoping this will explain Mr. Waters’ letter satisfactorily. Yours truly. P.S.-I herewith return Mr. Waters* letter and all former correspondence.