The daily morning journal and courier., 1898-12-07
VIEWS ON STREET PAYING
CITIZENS HEARD LAST VIC TIT BY
 COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION.

In Regard to Proposed Uniform Assess-
 memt for Permanent Pavements-
 Commission of fEx-Mayors sSugGested-
 Uniformity of Assessment Generally
 Favored Although some Think City
 should Pay All.
 The committee on legislation last night held public hearing on several matters, the most important of which was the communication from the mayor in regard to @ uniform system of street paving assessments. A large number of prominent citizens appeared to be heard on the matter, some favoring a | uniform assessment of fifty cents or seventy-five cents per linear foot, while i others thought that the city should pay | for all pavements. Henry c. White l thought that some assessment was bet l ter than none and that pavements should be laid for the convenience of | traffic which they must bear and not 1 according to the individual wishes Of l the owners of abutingt property. l He thought it was time the bur l den in this matter was capitalized anu 1 that the recommendation of the mayor was move in the right direction. The i kind of pavement should be determined i by property owners and the cost ot pavement should not determine the as-
 sessment, but rather the benefit re- ceived should so determine For ex-
 ample, assessments for sewers may 1 amount to more than the cost of the
 sewer, but even so the benefit to the
 amount of the assessment might exist.
 F. c. Bushnell also appeared and said
 that he would favor delegating the
 power to decide upon pavements to
 street paving commission and would
 favor leaving the power with the com
 mon council rather than giving it to
 the director of public works. He
 thought that the city should pay for all
 pavements from a general fund and
 this was the way to get the city paved
 with permanent pavement. He fa- 4 yored uniform assessment of fifty
 cents per linear foot and said that there
 was no reason why people who live
 where heavy block pavement was laid
 should pay more than those who live
 in streets where only a top dressing
 was needed.
 Frank s. Platt thought that in decid- ing upon the kind of pavement the ne
 cessities of different streets should be considered and thought that property owners on each street should pay pro- l portionate part of the cost of pavement,
 L1> .,, o,,I +O trunk line sewers, and that if a light 5 pavement is laid where a heavy one is
 not needed, the people on such streets . should not object to a heavy pavement , on streets where it is needed, and to
 paying a proportionate cost of the same He said that some paVements . were called permanent which were not
 permanent at one end when the other $ end was completed. As to the power of 7 determining the kind of pavement, he |, thought that this should be vested in = the department of public works where
 it was known where the heavy traffic S wass He thought that the system oi ,, assessment should be uniform one.
 Speaking later, MT. Bushnell said that 6 the sooner the matter of paving was o taken out of politics the quicker. would | the city be paved in some proper way
 Prentice w. Chase favored the creation 0l
 commission of three members to have f charge of the pavement matter.
 A. McMathewson thought that the city . should pay for all pavements, although ht Il said that an assessment might stop iog l. roIng and attempts to get payements oi !, streets where they are not needed A fifty :. :. cent or seventy -fye-cent assessment per lin T ear foot would be- he thought, good safe Il guard against this.
 Minot Chatfield favored the city payin all the cost but said objection to this migh l. be that it would be metrer of pulling t l. get streets paved, while streets needing pavement would not be touched. He there ,e streets like West Chapel street, and 30 cent IS on side streets.
 Ex-Mayor Henry F. Peck was present an tt said that on general principles he did not ia le yor a commission.
 l. Edward H. Parkhurst thought also tha
 th city should pay the entire cost of permG le nent payements, but as it would probably b Id impossible to bring about such q radie1 ,, change he favored 50-cent or 75-cent as - sessment per linear foot.
 5 Patrick Kent objected to uniform as 1e sessment of 75 cents per linear foot, and sai , that people who live on streets where theI is a two-inch pavement should not be con V. pelled to pay as much as those who liy 1c where there is heavier pavement.
 Anthony Carroll objected to the entire prt
 posed resolution for uniform assessment an
 assessed one-half for pavements. but tha
 the trouble would be that the city the )n could not collect from the companies. ,n The committee vii, give further hearin ,a on the matter at a date to be decided upo .a i later.