The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-10-11
DEFECTIVE PARK TITLES.
Controller Johnson's Weak ExpIana-
ton of the Ordinance.

In an interview in the News yesterday
Controller Johnson tries to explain away
the error in the ordinance which undertook
to authorize the Board of Public Works to
purchase the Miller-Cooper parks, attention
to which was called yesterday. The control
Ter denied the fact that the ordinance, not
naming the price to be paid for the land,
was invalidated thereby, and that a cloud
was placed on the city's title to the real
estate bought. He asserted that City At
torney Kern had held that it was not neces-
sary for the price to be set out. The charter
provides (Section 500 that the Board of
Works shall have power to condemn and
purchase real estate provided that no such
condemnation and purchase shall take place
when a sum of more than $1,000 is required
to be paid for the condemnation, hire or
purchase Of any real estate. unless the same
shall have been specifically authorized by
an ordinance" The ordinance itself refutes
Mr.. Johnson's explanation.
BY Section 1 the board is authorized to
purchase for park purposes ANY or all of
the following described tracts or parcels of
real estate, from the owners hereinafter
named. at prices not to exceed those herein
after indicated for each parcel or tract
thereof" Then follows the descriptions of
the lands, with the prices that are 10 be
from several. The second section is even
more explicit that the price is not to exceed
what the ordinance designateS or under
takes to designate. 1t says that the board
is authorized to condemn for park pur-
poses, for the use of the said city of In
dianapolis any or all of the parcels or tracts
of real estate above described, and to pay
to the owner thereof, on account of such
condemnation of said real estate, a sum not
greater than that designated in the fore
going section as reasonable price for the
same" etc. Attorneys say that it was the
intent of the ordinance to require the con-
demnation of the lands, as we'll as its pur-
chase prices, not exceeding those designated
No land was condemned None was APP
praised. 1t was simply bought outright. The
interview concludes with the statement that
the amounts were included where they
were fully determined. but in some cases
the exact amounts could not be, determined
because the owners were nonresidents.' This
is not true, as shown by the ordinance.
Mary S. Kaats. l.. M. Waldron and S. G.
Waldron are nonresidents, on the authority
of Mr.. Johnson himself, who so informed
Hibberd & Collects second addition. The
description of their holdings precedes that
of others in this addition. After the last
one, L. Smith, it is stipulated by the ordi-
nance that the city shall purchase 'All of
lots in Hibberd & Collects second addition
for the sum of $500 Some of the owners
of lots in w. c. Dennys addition to Glen
dale are said to be nonresdents. The ordi-
nance stipulateS that all lots in this addi-
ton shall be purchased for 1888.
AS a matter of fact it was not the inten-
and Richardson tracts from the ordinance.
Miller is not nonresident. The price that
was to be given him had been determined
and he has already received his money. At
torneys still insist that the conveyances of
all land that the city has bought might be
set aside, as it was not properly authorized
by the defective ordinance, the many errors
in which were mentioned yesterday. 1t will
be noticed that the city is authorized by
the ordinance to purchase the land for
park purposes" There is no such stipula-
ton in the deeds. They just simply convey
it. without designating what it is to be
used for. 1t is claimed that this was not in
territorial, but the deeds stand, the city
might, if it can prove a good title in spite
of the defective ordinance sell portions of
it, although the park bond ordinance in-
tended to authorize the sale of bonds for
purchasing parks and nothing else. After
selling the land the city might divert the
money to some other purpose, if it were so
inclined. City Attorney Kern said the deeds
would have been less clear in title if the
purpose for which the land was to be used
had been designated.
Suppose wanted to use portions of il
for water works purposes" said he 1--WE
could not do so if the land had been con-
veyed with the provisions that it was for
parks only"