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.
This material is made available to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. It may be protected by copyright, trademark, privacy, publicity rights, or other interests not owned by UNLV. Users are responsible for determining whether permissions are necessary from rights owners for any intended use and for obtaining all required permissions. Acknowledgement of the UNLV University Libraries is requested. For more information, please see the UNLV Special Collections policies on reproduction and use (https://www.library.unlv.edu/speccol/research_and_services/reproductions) or contact us at special.collections@unlv.edu.
Digital Provenance
Digitized materials: physical originals can be viewed in Special Collections and Archives reading room
Publisher
University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Libraries
Transcription
It would also seem as if the ereotion of them in several ?blocks might he an incentive to individuals owning adjacent lots to erect a better class of houses, something that would he more in harmony with those erected hy the company. There may he, however, some argument in favor of keeping than all together which would more than offset any advantages to he gained hy scattering them. There are some lots in the northeast part of the town, hut I would hardly recommend scattering the houses any more than as suggested hy Mr,Bracken, for the reason that it would cost more to huild them, hut located on the lots as suggested hy him, the cost of handling material would he very little more than it would he if they were huilt on two blocks. The lots mentioned in Mr.Bracken’s letter, Ios.15 and 16 in block 82, have been sold and do not belong to the company. I notice also that he suggests the erection of one house each on two lots in block 28 and two in block 12. This would mean that each house lot would he 50 feet Instead of 40 feet, as I understand is now the plan. I also call your attention to the fact that the erection of two houses, one of five rooms and one of four rooms, on lots 19, 20 and 21 in block 21, would mean that one house should have a 40-foot lot and another a 35-foot lot, which I think would he all right. Yours truly, Vice President & Auditor.
