New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-04-17
POPULAR DISSERTATIONS.
PROPERTy-Ow AGAINST 1T.

ANSWER TO THE PLEA FOR TIE EXTENSION OF
oNE-HUNDRED-AND-TH IRTY-FIFTH- ST.
To the Editor Of The Tribune.
Sir: May l ask for small space In your
columns to answer the so-cailed plea for the
tension OF one cumberland thirty ifth-st?
1t would be more than fair 10 the gentleman who
signed the communication that published In
Sundays Tribune TO say that he had even fairly
presented his side of the case.
The bill in question is III very many respects quite
different from the one introduced in the Assembly
by Mr. Gilligan of the XX11Id Assembly District.
The plan then proposed followed the lines OF
the present One hundred-an thirty ffth-st from
st. Nicholas-ave to Convent-ave, passing under
ST. Nicholas Terrace by tunnel. This plan showed
that there cutting through the property In
some places from forty-nve TO fifty feet deep. The
bill upon its face. indicates that there is 10 be
a cut. II is expressed in the language OF the
bill 1t was found that this proposed street would
destroy the connection between the aqueduct in
Convent-ave. and the gatchouse on the of
e-hundred-and thirty ffth-s. but this didn't de-
ter the advocates of the scheme They insisted
/ upon 1t. Said they were going 10 get up the hill
in straight line. no matter how 1t hurt anybody.
even If 1t hurt the city. This too big a
job 10 accomplish and they finally reinquished the
idea Of destroying the Croton Aqueduct.
They then devised this present plan OF having
a circular street from St Nicholas-ave. at
ne-hundred-and- thirty hfth-st 10 Convent-ave at
MISUNDERSTANDING hfth-st, which destroys
property than the other scheme did. 1t cuts
all the lots at angle. and in order 10 reach Con-
vent-ave. on an easy grade Il has 10 pass under
ST. Nicholas Terrace by tunnel, where there is
cutting Of nearly fifty feet For over two-thirds
Of the way this proposed street cuts the property
IN such q way, at such depth below the surface
of the ground. that It never can be used by the
people who property either side Of IT, We
never could get to IT except we climbed down
ladder. l doubt whether anybody would dare 90
through ii on foot. We have HAD some experience
in New-York with the tunnel In FOurth-ave., and
with the transverse roads. 1t has been found by
sore experience that people safely use them.
People do not like 10 80 into street which Is
walled in either side by precipitous wall from
ten TO fifty feet high Everybody knows that the
only motive for such scheme is that the trolley
road wants TO get 10 the top of the hill.
None of the property-ow owners whose property Is
Immediately affected by II advocating H. Miss
Pinkney. who owns all the property between ST.
Ncholas-ave. and st. Nicholas Terrace. is opposed
to H. SO are al the including
and Convent-ave. An the surrounding properly
owners are opposed to it, The Acad6my Hi thS
orphan Asylum is opposed TO II; the chairman OF
College site is opposed TO 1t, and has spoken
against it in the legislature: Jacob d Butler
Of the Washington Heights Property owners AS
ISOLATION. is opposed to IT, No person Is IN iay [r
of One-hundred- thirty hfth-st. east Of Eighth
The city authoi1tes. so lai as any pouN Hi9
been spoken to on the subject are opposed TO y;
The representative OF the city who has appeared
before the committees OF the Assembly and Senate
has spoken against II. The Corporation counsel
office is also opposed TO the bill According 10 thlS
mornings Sun in recording the proceedings OF
the PARK Board the Park Department is opposed
to It. The Mayor stated TO, the propertyIown1ers
who called upon him the other day that ne was
opposed It, When the gentlemen VINO caIled 10
see him the other day stated that they haG ~ per
cent of the propertyowners in favor or ~ ne very
properly said that If that was so he would appIove
the bill If Il passed. To-day the properly
owners who are opposed 70 it appeared before the
Mayor and showed clearly to him how perfectly
pretentious was the claim Of these gentlemen thai
tbev represented anybody who really was affected
hv the proceedings. There were present mares
II Parnev who owns a large amount or property
In the neighborhood. ard the gentlemen WHOSE
mes are mentioned above as being opposed 10
tbie scheme The Mayor said that he was SIM
opposed TO the plan and he intended to hold the
yaennie who called upon him the other day 10 a
etrirt construction of his language. that he would
NOT favor the bill unless they showed nm that ~
,,er cent of the property owners we're in taVor OF H.
The scheme has no merit in Itself, and is not IN
the interest either of the city or the prOpery-oWh
CTS WIN "'0 ~ JOHN G. SHAW,
Attorney for Mary G. Pinkney.