Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-05-08
THE CITY HALL.
SOME EXPRESSIONS AS TO THE
PROPER LOCATION OF 1T.
How the Bailey Lots and the Casey & Swa-
sey Block are Assessed-Coun-
ell Meeting.

all absorbing question in Fort Worth. In
attempting to, get the views OF citizens a
GAZETTE reporter found many who posi-
lively declined to express themselves. de
found number who do not wish TO BUY
more grounds. The interviews speak for
themselves.
The first man seen was City Assessor and
Collector Hugh 7. Wilson, who said: me
Baptist church property is lots to lO,
block Z, on Jennings avenue. W. j. Bailey
owns lots I to 5 Immediately south
of the above lots in the same
". j. Bailey also owns lots II TO IS
in the same block fronting west on Monroe
street. The average assessed value per lot
IS Sl264. The Casey & Swasey block IS as
sessed at 50, 6335.''
To understand this it is necessary to say
MIR Bailey asks for seventeen lots SGT, 900,
assessed for 81, ass. Casey & Swasey offer
twenty-one lots, assessed at SG4,63o. for
$4,000.
&c. W. Hurley-If owners of property in
the Third ward are only good TO pay taxes,
then, of course, q little Clique should get
al the public money spent right at their
doors to make them ricn, and we poor dew
lis can keep on paying taxes TO make
chosen few rich and richer. The Casey d
Swasey block is the only one in Fort Worth
offered TO the city that is at all suitable for
the market and hall. If the aldermen are
for all of Fort Worth, they will buy that
block and go to work building.
&. G. lawson happen to be numbered
in the list of Fort Worth tax payers, and |
am perfectly willing to express myself on
this city hall question. BY all means, put
it on the Casey Il Swasey property 1t
would be robbing the tax payers TO pay the
price asked for the Bailey property, which
is an out of the way place anyhow. The
Casey * SwaSey block Is as near central as
any place the city can get. If the hall and
market are to built for the people, that is
the place to put IL If 4 few are to benefit
at the expense of the many. then Squander
the money on the other site.
W II. Wharf.-The city hall should by all
means be built on the Casey & Swasey
property. l am tolerably heavy taxpayer
in Fort Worth and | say this for the benefit
of the city. The property is more central
than any other offered and is 80 per cent
cheaper than the Bailey property. Then
want to see the Third ward have some
show in the distribution OF favors. Yes,
sir, the Casey X Swasey block is the place
for the hall
\ prominent lawyer-If the city hall
were built on the Casey & Swasey property
ii would make Christians out Of all the
dcnizens in Hells Half Acre or make them
move.aEd that IS . cOnsunmation Cevoutly 10
be wished. As purifier the city hall III
that location would be worth hundreds OF
thousands of dollars to Fort Worth.
Zane Cetti--I think that nineteen TO
twenty years experience in the real estate
business in Fort Worth qualities me to ex-
press an opinion as to the relative values of
real estate, and l, therefore, say THAI lot
on Rusk or Calhoun street is more valuable
than one on Monroe street or Jennings ave-
nue.. | also know that the Casey 81 Swasey
property is offered to the city at less than
tho value put on it by the assessor OF the
city of Fort Worth. ] consider the Casey
Il Swasey property far more central than
the Bailey property. In fact, there can be
10 comparison between the two offers. -
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES W. swAYSE.
''In looking at it from 4 business stand
point, taking the relative merits of the two
propositions into consideration, ! think, il
YOU make it an issue between Casey u
Swasey's and Mr.. Bailey's proposition.
the former is much preferable / preferred
Mr.. Noodles block, as being nearest the
bfainess interest of the city: but since the
Issue seems to be drawn between the other
two. certainly prefer Casey & Swasey's
DO they want it all2 Haven't they got
the federal building and the high school on
the west side! The wants and needs OF the
city need to be proportioned in point of
public buildings. l understand that the
S32, 900 proposition of Mr.. Bailey's COM
prises six lots on Monroe street and two on
aSSiisC. ~ III d ilNOsA-
venient shape. As q taxpayer | certainly
think that S32 900 is good deal of money
TO pay for property situated in such 4 shape
ana at such distance from Houston street,
and which / understand the average as
sessed valuation per lot is not over $500
each, while he asks $1,000. The Casey &
Swasey proposition is not quite
$1,000 per lot, while its assessed
valuation on the city assessors
books are about the same. The Bailey
property is entirely too high and think
that the interests Of this city will be out
ragged If accepted. have no selfish inter
est, but speak from the standpoint of bust
ness and Of the interests of the city,
y. W. Caswell-The city has all the prop
erty needed for city hall now and should
not buy more. l am not in favor Of n mar
ket house.
r. j. Hurley-I want the city hail site
settled and $50 men put to work building
the city hall.
H c. Caswell-The only property the
city needs for q city hall is one 25-foot lot
on Monroe street, making them l25xi94
feet, and if Mr.. Bailey Will open jackson
street by the city allowing him to close the
street below it should be done. There
Should be no market house near it. We eX-
pect to be 4 fine city in q few years and do
not want city hall disgraced by a market
house. AS for the city wanting more