New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1885-03-09
THE CITY AND THE NEW PARKS.
MUST NETWORK PAY THEIR WHOLE COST

xysrCHrsrER COUNTY THE ATTITUDE OF A BEG.
GAR-INJUsrIcE OF THE SCHEME.
There ia increasing opposition to the plan OF
establishing parks in weschester County ut the expense
of New York City, and also to the project OF taxing inc
entire city for parks in the Annexed Dstrct vi
part Of tho cost the property benefited as
has been done in tho Of all other parks pre'i'
ousy laid Mayor Grace Controller Loew ana Corpo
ration Counsel Lacombe have united In memorial 70
the Legislature asking for tho passage OF tne
bill recently introduced to amend inc 10"
passed O year ago on this SUBJECT Aus
Real Estate Exchange has appointed acommttee "heh
10 also at work preparing memorial To the LeSsiA'o
o the subject.
In the one sent to Albany by Mayor Controller and
Corporation Counsel attention Is called to the fact tha
the proposed Pelham Park, which win contain 17oo
acres is several miles from the NewYork City line
nearly nine miles from the Harlem River Bridge. Inc
Bronx parkway. Of 100 acres, s all In Westminster
County and entire cost Of the proposed Improvements
Of westchester property. amounting TO many
millions of dollars, will DO levied upon
the City OF Nsw-York, without any chance
NJ getting back single dosr In taxes the surround
ing property, with the further prospect OF having 10 pay
tsess pors The memorial further states that the city
Ia urgently In need OF more schoohouses 10 n
lie schools that it is also required under existing laws
to make costly aud necessary Improvements on te
water front and to improve park lands now owned by
the cty for the requirement Of which surrounding prop
erty-owners were made to pay heavy assessment anu
he made by the Of bonds, which cannot be issued
If proposed plans for the new parks are carried OUT
cnts OF the marx, in wesichester County limits tho
pondure the other proposed new parks to
adjoining property benefited by the parks TO leave this
provision out. the memorial states wouu 90 sse' t
Justice to the property owners VINO were assesseu LOT
Central and other parks, and who would now 20
pay more toward the new parks which woud u Oh no
benefit them than the persons largely oenented. Az
called the fact that twohrds OF the cost Oh
was assessed the surrounding property
It said yesterday by members OF tne Lcgissturo
ns te H1Id Would soaty oppose the repeal OF
the law provides that shai pay Tor he
SoS 81 M nr CREAMY tHi adj to the taxable Value Of
Ter property without any cost to the county anu tha
q ey allowed good thing to slip from their control
John McCayo OF NO. 90 Cedar-st, who was one OF the
gnasgar Snd who also Projected and aided in carrying
out widening OF sixth and seventh ayes ana otner
Said In regard to the proposed new PARKS:
II with many Of my f5enaa have n been
which viii compel this city to pay for parks III vest
chester County nave been equally & at 70 bn
cost OF the e. without assessing the surrounding pro-
perry paid about SoT WIFI +. Of no O' benet
10 owners Of property In the lower part OF inc
city, and yet the greater part OF Ae expense VIII lai
hope there will be repetition Of past methods in
missioner on such work. appraised the condemned
property AZ its market value before tue law was pisse
Tor inproy ut what 10 would bring proFuihs
the Improvement not made IL Is the practice no"
to appraso the property condennea according 10 tno
value the surrounding property AFTER inc PARK nus
been laid out. IN thatway the city was made 10 pay
actual value appraised before tie PARK was mapped 9
was ony 100000 For Mornins'i side PARK lois,1o5
vas pad although 100000 wOud have been a gooI
price People 10 mo before Mgrn'ngsdo ParA was
i,i ont purchase lots there Tor thcu a.
broker. I did 80. aud paid from 500 ~ 5000 ot.
dh not what they wanted the land for but when
oi from thc city, understood the matter lhe'c lAI'
Valuations are the work ~ spectators ana Assessment
I. TysTs The commissioners III "a jury and near lle
tsinuuy uf sOccd experts employ ed by t1e properly
owner. and place their valuations &c, Orllhg 10 IN,
rip Oh the iuoy instead Of apprslsfuK the lana
th.n-ei.e. should To dou.. IL tho weight OF test-
rin, the city .tnnis no sho" ~
all when pltte against n Hruy Ol n.ct''ici property
owners blink .t - tms that &c pepPle OF ms Guy
were aroused tniA question OF Ia" PROPOSED pdFAs