Morning journal and courier., 1882-03-10
Tho East Rock Park.

street. and found that the amounts assessed
were, when added to the city appropriations,
together with the funds in the hands of the
Park Commissioners would be insufficient to
pay the estimated damages. The property
owners on the principal approaches to the
Park, together with the Park Commission
ers then urged that it was only fair that
those property owners residing in the section
already named should be equally assessed
with the others. The Board of Compensa-
ton finally decided to hear these parties, and
| the first meeting was held last Tuesday, when
| about fifty small property owners were heard
Last evening, in addition, many more ap-
peared crowding the rooms in which the
hearing was held. Those who offered their
protests and expressed their views appear
below:
William Fl. Merwin, Is Edwards street,
am not in favor of the Park. I do not think
that it will benefit me one cent.
Thomas Flynn, % Edwards street, am
opposed to the assessment but don't care
| anything about the Park. I think that they
will make nuisance of it.
Wilson r. Wright, 81 Edwards street-No
objection to the Park, but [ oppose as
sessment. look upon it benefit to the
whole city and no more to me than to other
property owners in the city.
Joon Ell. Post, IA Edwards street, object
| to special assessment, as I cannot see where
| it benefits me more than others; if it bene-
fits the property am willing to pay FAY pro
| rata of general tax. Besides myself 1 rep
resent the estate of Robert Gibson.
| Thomas Hopton, 104 1-2 Orange street
No objection to Park, but object to spe-
cial assessment
| Newell F. Burnett SO Edwards street,
| have no objections to the Park; don't think
| that it will enhance the value of my property
| any more than the cemetery would.
| That's good taste, remarked Mr.. Merwin.
William J. Atwater-I am in favor of the
Park. I think that it benefits all my prop
! erty. It benefits my property as much in
| Trumbull street as anywhere else. I oppose
| special tax, but ON willing to pay general
| taxation. When the Park. was proposed it
| was said that the city would expend $4,000
annually. am willing to pay my share. I
don't think that it will benefit or increase the
| value of my property cents worth. I con-
| tributed towards the Park and am in favor of
| it, but think that it should be a general tax.
Mr.. Merwin-'sDon't you think that it
| will draw the center of the city towards that
| locality ?"
''No, sir. Not the better classes. am
satisfied of that
Mr.. Atwater said that he also represented
the estate of H. J. Atwater, the property
| owned by Garwood Ferris John r. Holiday
and William Kinney. These parties, Mr. At
| water said, all objected to special assess
ment.
"I don't believe that there is citizen of
New Haven that believes that there should
be an assessment of any land unless that all
the property was assessed, " concluded Mr.
Atwater.
7. w. Hine, 70 Howe street-So far as am
concerned can see no personal benefit to be
derived from the Park. It will not, in my
opinion, benefit my property mill. I think
it will tend to draw in class of people detri-
| mental to the class of people that live in that
section. The Park may be benefit to the
city and I would not oppose it, but I think
that the tax should be general one. Nature
gave us good piece of property here, and if
it had not been for such petty annoyances we
would now have 100000 inhabitants. This
is my opinion gentlemen. tell you that we
cannot afford to lose such men as G. S. Malt
by, and we have lost him by this personal
taxation.
Michael FLYNN, 7 Nichols street, would
rather give 300 than have the Park there.
If we don't tax you at all? ...t
T tell you I don't want it there.
Henry G. SMITH don't consider the Park
any benefit to me and don't care about it be-:
ing there at all.
The estate of William l.. Foster was repre-
sented by Ebenezer Gilbert-We have no OBJ
lection to the Park, but object to special
assessment. I am executor of the estate.
think that property owners should be assessed
alike. -
Samuel A. York, Edwards street, don't
know what you really desire. If your board
had decided to make special assessment, it
would be well to know it, but do not know
what you propose to do. If the Park is pro-
posed as public Improvement shall not
stand in the way. One of my reasons for
living where L do was to get a little out of
the city. If the proposed Park will have the
effect some of its enthusiastic admirers
claim, that is of building up that section of
the city, cannot see where it will benefit
me. I will venture to say that yen will not
hear of a building being erected in the next
fifty years. that not single building has
been erected on account of the Park. will
also venture to say that with the exception Of
the city for the next fifty years it will be i'm
possible to make the proposed park amount
to anything therefore don't want to expend
any amount that will not be any particu-
lar benefit to me or my children,
and perhaps, only an atom of benefit
my grand or great-grandchildren. Tt looks
to me as if my money to be taken to buy
property for the city of New Haven. This
scheme will enable the city of New Haven to
take money out of my pockets and put it into
yours, and I think that is not right. Now as
to the improvements SO far as the park is
concerned. have the same advantage now
that we would have with the park, for I fire.
quently go there on Sunday with my chill
dren for walk. Judge York in his argu-
ment claimed that if any body was to be as
sessed it was in reality those who lived at
distance owned their own carriages and were
able to ride and enjoy the proposed drives
and the beautiful scenery that was affected
by view from East Rock and Snake Rock.
He and others in the vicinity walked their
and enjoyed it. In conclusion, Judge York
said that he did not think that any particular
individual should be assessed. It would be
benefit and ornament to the whole city. His
remarks were applauded by the property
owners present.
Judge John G. Hollister, representing the
estate of Daniel Wheeler, said that he fully
endorsed all that Judge York had said.
Judge York, in reply to question of MIR,
Mansfield of how it was supposed that the
city would acquire title to the property of
the proposed park, said that as he understood
it the park commissioners already had quite
strip of land, which they could improve as
rapidly as their finances permitted, and it
was not necessary to obtain the title to the
property all at once.
Clarence I'll. Stillson objected to it because
the Board of Compensation seemed to be pre-
mature in their ideas of enhancing the valu-
alton of their property. It was an assump-
ton for the city to say that the property
owners would be benefited at once.
Mr.. Mansfield here explained the duties of
the Board of Compensation. He said that
the city had not made provision for paying
the damages and the inference was that the
deficit was to be made up by assessments, and
it was only the doty of the Board to hear
arguments in favor and against the proposed
park.
David W. Thompson, 179 Chapel street
Personally I would rather pay $3.50 than
have the Park there. If 1 was to be assessed
either way would pay to have it abolished
rather than established. If the Park is to
be established I think that the assessments
should all be alike.
Lieutenant Sheridan, of the police. said
that he had no objections to a park, but
would just as well have it at West as East
Rock. He owned small house which he
rented ON Cottage street, but he should not
think of raising the rent on account of the
Park I think that the Park would be
benefit to the city more than to individuals.
Michael R. Enscoe opposed the Park and
condemned it strongly. He offered to con-
tribute twice the amount of what his assess
ments would be to defeat any assessment for
the property owners in the vicinity.
Ex-Tax Collector Hillhouse was in favor of
the Park, but opposed specsal assessment.
He claimed that no assessment for the public