The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1871-07-02

revert to the owner unless taken FOR some public
purpose" THIS did not include the streets moi
coded or dedicated, and, there ore. the unopened
streets went back absolutely 10 his clients. But |
there was Inequality IN the awards; ne mad analysed
the report and found that the lots Cd the opened
S. ,nr were awarded 800 per lot and sometimes
no one or his clients this error made 000o differ
ence 10 Others in all over one hundred thousand dol
iars some alteration. he understood, had been
Inade since ms objections were put In he mad de-
sired time TO examine them.
EXAMINATION OF THE REPORT.
Judge Barnard asked II 1t was not provided that
the report should be open for examination for certain
days.
Mr.. Kche said not after the correction OF the re-
port Heproceeded topomt out several Inequalities
III the valuations.
With regard TO the assessments he claimed that
the assessments on the water los were wrong, the
commissioners having cut OF AL their upland, ana
cut them OF from all fronts on the streets.
AWARDS AND ASSESSMENTS BOTd Objected TO.
Mr.. Anderson said he appeared for Q large numDer
OF property owners who objected to both awards and
assessments. AS 20 the awards they were objections
TO amounts perhaps not reviewabls here, IA RAISING
no question OF principle. The executors OF the
harsen estate raised an objection 10 an assessment
which he believed included matter OF prlncple.
The Harsen estate included lots On Seventy-Ars
street. There was no greater Advantage from the
park to the lots on the north side than on the south
SIDE OF me street the only access to the park from
on rhe north side were assessed to two and
q half times as much as those on the south side
The other objections were to tile assessments on
water lots The water lots OF the ODectors were not
vet filled IN or reclaimed by the owners 1t was suo-
msnts nor property subject to assessment for bene+
mt. The ACT OF 1913 gave the fee OF these lands to
and ned in ne grantees could not I'LL in without
leave rom the Common Council. II they did they be-
1857, setting back the exterior line OF the buKhead
showed that the Legislature TOOK this view, Us other
wise the act would have taken property without
compensation. But besides, Nc benefit had accrued
from this park to these lots on the contrary DAM
age resulted to them; Their only use was lor com
merclal purposes. Access to them was cut of by
the park: how could they be beneite 10y thatf
Again the park was Intended for pleasure. 10 I'M
OF the park. 1t could not benefit the commercIal
value or these lots cutting on ali stOrehouses ware
houses and conveniences winch would tempt shlps
ALLEGED DIspRopoRrIoNArE ASSESSMENTS.
Mr.. Ernst objected TO an assessment on lots IN 106b
and l07th Streets on the ground that 1t Is dspr0pOr-
t0nate to the assessment laid on the property the
Those lots belonging to the Hudson River Railroad.
were assessed S5oO-whiie Ills lots were assessed
$6,3OU.
Mr. on 70 sa M Cath sS
nothirg was said about the water 'front.' p She was
entitled he claimed TO this water 'front.' and nothing
was wanting TO er ul title to them but the formal
issue OF the grant, to which she was entitled.
CONSUMING PROcLIviTIEs OF INTEREsr AND TAXES
owners e yanird street rose IN ~
street, the same questions as Raised by
Mr. Devlin and Judge Porter, that the street never
having been opened they were entitled TO the full
value OF the street, subject perhaps to slight de-
duction for the less value Of lots unopened
streets. He stated that Mr.. Martyn mad purchased;
his lots for 100000 two years ago. Interest and
taxes brought this up to nearly SD, OO0 The Come
missiOncrs had awarded but $4,000.
CASE OF THE CITY.
Mr.. OGorman, alter several other speeches on he.
hail OF parties opposed to continuation Of the re-
port addressed the Court, SUSTAINING the action OF
the Commissioners. He claimed that the assessment
III itself properly levied upon the parties TO
be benefited by the proposed improvements. The
objections to the were mostly OF local charac>
ter naturally ncnrring the hostility or opposition.
oil the nOn-cOnIlguous property owners, who were
not yet sufficiently awake TO their own interest IN
the increased value which all the contiguous prop.
erty wOlid receive when the proposed work Was
Iairly done and completed.
very natural motive of opposition to the pro-
posed Improvements lies IN the tact that the Comnls-
siOners have taken TOO wide range IN their as
sessment as to the benefits to be conferred by the
contemplated route. A larger assessment fairly
calculated the holders or property IN the imme-
date neignbOrn0Od might not be matter OF COM
plant; bu: when It reaches localities outside and
beyond the property to be benefited naturally
enough opposition to IL Is excited on the part OF
landhOlders and others.
The only opposition TO any improvements in the
city OF New York arises and can only ARISE from an,
unjust assessment on the actual value and income on
any given piece Of property In any district. Let the
first principle Of benefit to the immediate holder and
his prospective interest IN the property to be assessed
be fairly equallzcd and the city authorities GO
ON improving forever.
We look with great interest for decision OF ncs
Court IN this case