Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1889-03-09
IT COSTS TOO MUCH,
And That is Why so Many Men OPP
pose Widening Diamond Street.
VIEWS OF PROTESTING CITIZENS
Are Freely Laid Before the Councilmanic
Committee, Together With
A REMONSTRANCE LARGELY SIGNED

Three members Of the sub-Survey Com
mittee of City Councils, appointed to in
vestigate the matter of the proposed widen
ing of Diamond street, met at the Chamber
of Commerce yesterday afternoon and heard
the views of citizens and property owners
on the matter. The meeting had been called
for the corner of NEo I'd and Diamond streets,
but Superintendent Follansbee invited the
gentlemen into the Chamber of Commerce.
The members of the committee present
were Messrs. Bingham, Getty and Epping.
Among the property owners were David
Gregg, j. R. Gregg, Thomas Miller, G. G.
Hugh Richardson, L. Mcintosh, S. W.
Black and James R. Mckee.
Mr.. Bingham acted as Chairman of the
committee, and stated that the object was
to hear the statements of the property own
ers either for or against the proposed widen
ing of Diamond street.
Mr.. Meyran wanted to know first how the
assessment was to be made to bear the cost
of the work. Mr.. Bingham replied that the
matter of assessment was entirely In the dis
cretion of the Board of Viewers. The law
in regard to widening street is the same as
that relating to the opening. and unless the
board find that there is a sufficient amount
of property benefited by the improvement
to pay the cost of it, the ordinance could
never pass Councils.
PERTINENT QUERY.
Major Patterson asked how it was to be
determined to what extent lot So feet deep
would be benefited after 20 feet had been
cut away, and if, in the event of it being
decided wholly damaged, the owner was to
be paid the assessed value of the lot, and If
the owners of abutting property would be
assessed to pay these damages.
Mr.. Bingham replied again that the
Board of Viewers had power to go as tar as
in their judgment property had been bene-
fted.
Mr.. Miller was of opinion that in in
stances where the small end of lot re-
mained directly in the rear end of property
fronting on Fifth avenue, the property
would be worth quite as much as the whole
lot fronting on Diamond street.
Mr.. Gregg said he was opposed to the
proposed widening entirely; but, if it was to
be done at all, he would as soon see it made
30 feet wide as 40. He also suggested, as an
objection to the whole matter, that tenants
as well as owners would be damaged by the
proposed scheme. A business man, whose
lease runs for five or ten years yet, would
have his business almost entirely destroyed.
Mr.. France agreed with Mr.. Gregg, say
ing that he had been 21 years building up
business, and he wanted to know if he was
to be left without getting damages in case
his business was destroyed.
Mr.. Bingham said he could hardly expect
damages for the q years he had been carry
ing on successful business, but might ex-
pect some consideration for the remainder of
his lease.
The following figures, taken from the
City Assessors books, on the property on
the side of Diamond street that is to be cut
away, and which, it was thought, might be
taken asa basis for estimating the cost of
the improvement, were presented by Mr..
Bingham: