Grand Rapids herald. [volume] (Grand Rapids, Mich.) 1892-1959, 1892-09-30
WHY HE VETOED Ii
Mayor Stuart Tells the Alder
men
HOW THINGS ARE DRIFTING
And Suggests Remedy foE the APPsr-
ent ohittiessness - Ths
Proceedings.

C0>scu a. 4a-e so = eCeottA - $50
common council Was the consideration
OF = petition from the Consolidated
Brick and Tile company 10 have the
council refer back 10 the board or pub
deciding 10 use a certain make OF brick
for sewers. liz Is claimed by the board
of public works that the brick OF the
Grand Rapids Brick company IA much
better for tue purpose than any other
make OF BRICK. These brick coat 20
cents per thousand more than the other
bricks offered by the brick making COM
panies of the city.
Aldermen Damskey, Dunton, Teach
out and Wurzburg were absent.
Fstitions and Complaints.
Residents on North College avenue
asked that better lights be furnished
them. Referred 10 the committee on
lamps.
Residents near the corner of Lyon
street and Lyon place complained that
the tower lights do not give sufficient
light IN the street and asked for light
at the corner. Referred 10 the COM
mlttee on lights.
Residents in the east end of Lyon
street complained of the manner in
which the work of improving the street
is being done.
Alderman Ball asked that Superin-
tendent DIV of the board of public
works be heard. Mr.. DAVIS said the
boAfd had passed upon the material
| being used in the street. The board
Was satisfied with the material. The
matter was referred to the committee
on streets and the board Of public
| works.
The Grand Rapids Consolidated Brick
and Tile company protested against the
action of the board of public works in
deciding TO use none but brick made
by the Grand Rapids Brick company in
sewer construction. Referred TO the
board of public works with instruc-
lions to report the facts to the council.
| Residents on Terrace avenue asked
| for an additional light on that street.
Referred to the committee OF lamps.
Explained His Veto.
The veto of the ratification of the
| Madison street sewer rCil was read.
The mayor also read the following ad-
ditonal explanation of his veto:
"In my first message to you l called
attention to the fact that many Of the
| funds of the city were seriously over
drawn and gave among other causes OF
the deficiency the reason that while
| local improvements were Ostenslbly
| paid by an assessment upon the
| property benefited that in many cases
expenses for PRELIMINARY work were not
estimated high enough and the def
cheney was paid out OF some other
| fund. The roll is - good illustration
| of the way the inroads are made upon
the other funds and to that extent
cause shortage, while ostensibly the
persons IN the district supposed to be
benefited are paying for the whole
| improvement.
Objections stated
The objections | make to the con-
| firmation of this roll are as follows:
First-The estimated cost Of the i'm
| provement as filed is as follows:
Contract q 400 90
IN - ~
% %
Extra LOT W. -
Total.....-. ........................s q. 100 90
OF this amount only SIS, l8l is in the
| roll, leaving S3,9l9 unprovlded for to
| drift about, and to be paid out of some
| other fund. And If this is found i'm
| possible TO do at some future time,
then a new assessment will have to be
made, at large expense upon this dis
trict, to raise this small amount and
| believe il should be determined be-
fore the roll 10 signed, how this is to be
paid. | am aware of the fact that
there has been some discussion hereto
fore IN thiscouncIl that this sum should
be paid by the city at large, inasmuch
as 1t was deemed necessary to continue
the sewer down Canal street for the
discharge of storm water, to a point
near the pumping station before enter
ing the river, TO prevent contamination,
whereas If 1t had not been tor the in
take IN the river, the discharge could
have been made at Rowland street,
and therefore the city at large should
pay this additional expense.
Not Clear to Him.
| While there seems to be some equity
IN the claim, yet II Is not at all clear to
me thst this expense should be imposed
upon the city at large. Every other
part of the city has had TO contribute
Its Just proportion to the building OF
trunk sewers into which its laterais
would reach, and | am inclined to
think that the true policy ls TO continue
this plan. and 4 some parts of the city
are unfortunately situated, with refer.
ence To getting an outlet for its sewage
the district thus situated should pay
for II. At any rate, when II is contenl-
plated that we should depart from the
rule OF making the district pay the
whole expense, that fact should appear
and be determined upon very early IN
the proceedings; so that the aldermen,
IN voting for an Improvement, would
know whether the improvement is tc
be made by local district or by ths
city at ,arge. and not let the improve.
ment be ordered N the usual way and
then, after the work is all completed
adopt some other course of paying fol-
1t than the usual one.
1T Il be true that a part of the storm
water branch OF the sewer was built tC
| conduct the water below the pumpms
station, the expense may be charged e
the water works fund. and I suppos,
that payment, If Il il thought best, o
! this amount, can vet be taken out 81
the water works fund, as has been suz
gested By some of tne aldermen: but i
this course be pursued II should be dou'
promptly.
TDbusine..like Methods
Second My second objection to TIT
ratification OF the roll Il that while th'
tax rou provides for only Sl9.fsl. sng
you must provide for g. 9ls from som'
other fund. another expense amount
ing now to over 81, 900 has arisen. hl
the unhusInsssi re manner In winch tn
/ r..