The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-11-06
COMPLICATIONS THAT ARISE.
Board of Works VIII Take Charge of
the Park System.


The city officials are uncertain where they
will bring up on the park scheme, and are
a little unwilling to discuss the probable
course that will be pursued in the future
until an opinion has been obtained from the
city attorney as to the legal phases of the
embarrassing situation in which the deci-
sion of the Supreme Court places them.
When the Journal raised the point as to the
unconstitutionality of the law, because it
created a five-year tenure of office for the
Park Commissioners, a suit was instituted
by the Park Board against itself 10 test
this question. At that time the mayor said
that whether the law was declared uncon-
stitutional or not the park system would
still be developed in any event. This, he
said, could be done by the Board of Pub
lie Works, which, under the charter, is the
custodian of all city property, and which
has the right to acquire additional property
within certain limits. Here is where one
difficulty arises. The Board of Public
Works cannot expend more than $1,000 for
the purchase of property, it is said, without
the concurrence of the Council. This being
true, the real power to say whether or not
the proposed park system shall be carried
out lies with that body. If the Council is
so inclined, it can stop the work right where
it now stands. In any event, it is antici-
pated that there will be innumerable brawls
in the Council over the park question, as
each member will be ambitious to have
parks in his ward or section of the city. 1t
will be remembered that the Council, or
rather the Democratic majority of it, held
up the park appropriation ordinance last
winter until the Board of Park Commits
sioners agreed to purchase the tracts they
wanted selected.
Mayor Taggart intimated, when the suit
was brought, that the Board of Public
Works would have the right to create a
bureau of parks in case the Park Board
was wiped out, and that it could proceed
along the lines already laid out 1t is sup
posed that this plan will be followed, unless
the city attorney holds there is some legal
difficulty to prevent it.
The main objection that has been raised
is that the Board of Works has no power
to condemn real estate for park purposes,
and that the only way it can acquire ground
for parks is by agreement with the owners
Ex-City Attorney Curtis is authority for
the statement that the Board of Works can
not condemn land for park purposes The
Board of Park Commissioners had the
power of eminent domain, and under this
power could take any lands within four
miles of the city for park purposes, whether
the owner was willing or not. If this power
cannot be exercised by the Board of Pub
lie Works it is clear that the whole park
scheme will go a-glimmering, as there was
sufficient opposition raised to the Park
Board condemnation proceedings last
spring to indicate that the tracts along the
river bottoms and Fall creek cannot be pur-
chased for reasonable price by agreement
1t is known that most of the property own
ers value their land at three or four times
the figures made by the park assessors
AT the price fixed by the assessors the board
n 10 la nd
laid out With that money at hand and all
the additional money that the city could
secure by issuing bonds up to the limit of
Indebtedness there would still be not nearly
enough to buy the land at the price asked
by the owners. To secure agreements from
all of them would require much trouble. 1t
is barely possible that the residents of the
northeastern section of the city can now Sc
cure parks along Pogue's run south of
Brightwood. where the Board of Park Com
mtssioners was offered eighty acres of land
at fair price. The owners knew, however,
that the board had the power to condemn
and take the land at it's own price, and this
may have had something to do with the
fair offers that We're made. If there is no
power of condemnation for park purposes
lodged in the city, without doubt the price
Of all land that owners are unwilling to
part with will be greatly advanced.
Some questions have been raised as to
the right of the Board of Public Works to
use the 1000 that was appropriated for
park purposes inasmuch as the ordinance
designated that the money was for the use
of the Board of Park Commissioners. This
is answered by the assertion that inasmuch
as the Park Board has been wiped out the
money must revert to the city's general fund
and be subject to reappropriation by the
Council. Indeed, it was contended some
time ago that if the Park Board was not
overthrown and the money was not expend
ed within the year it would revert to the
treasury, even though it had been borrowed
and appropriated for specific purpose,
the contention being the money must be
expended within year after it was appro-
priated. This situation at once creates
do i'm
eral fund the Council will have the right
to it for any purpose. There is said to
be one safeguard, however 1t is the pro-
vision that appropriations can only be made
on the recommendation of the city con-
troller.
T: ]: Montgomery, member of the Board
of Public Works. was unwilling to say yes
terday what the Board of Public Works
would do toward creating park bureau
until the subject had been carefully dis
cussed and an opinion had been obtained
from the city attorney. This is one of the
questions that will come up in the near
future. Mayor Taggart was out of the city
yesterday.