The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1899-03-18
THE PAYING ASSESSMENTS
HEARING ON BILL FOR CHARTER
AMENDMENT CONCERNING THEM.

|
Several New Haven Citizens Appearea
Before Committee ON Cities nnd Eor-
oughs Yestcrday-HighwayC Commits.
sioner Macdonald,s Su uggestton. sor,.
of Them May be Incorporated In I
Substitute Bill-Hearing ON Firemen,s
Petition Next Wednesday.
The first matter brought before the
committee on cities and boroughs yes-
terday afternoon was the bill concern
ing street pavements in New Haven and
assessments for the same Corporation
Counsel Ely read the bill drafted by
Alderman Chillingworth and endorsed
by the board Of aldermen. The biz
provides that one mill tax shall be an
nually assessed upon the grand list 81
New Haven ''to be expended for thu
original construction Of pavements
herein enumerated" The bill provides
for assessment of benefits and damages
/ ooSeiAASI uAi cbaltlh6 PlOpCILyt Luc a6-
sessment per lineal foot frontage being
regulated so as not to exceed certain
amounts for certain kinds Of pavement,
and that assessments under it's provi-
sions be laid for the pavements already
constructed on Ashmun, Orange, Trum-
bull, West Chapel and Wooster streets.
Mr.. Ely read the act Of 1895 concerns
ing street pavements, and said that
this proposed bill was for an amend
ment Of that act
Mr.. Chillingworth said the bill waAs
intended to correct faults in the act or
1885, He said that the pavement was no
more than ordered when combinations
were made for various kinds Of pave
ments; that the assessment per yard
had been declared by attorneys Of New
Haven to be unconstitutional, and that
the unsatisfactory reading Of the bill
of 1895 led to the drafting Of his bill.
He argued that brick cutters were es-
sential to good pavement. The bill
provides that all the pavements laid
under its provisions shall have brick
cutters.
Mr.. Chillingworth explained his bill
further, and at the request Of Corpora
tion Counsel Ely, Highway Commits
sioner Macdonald was asked to give his
opinion concerning the bill and the cost
of pavements.
Mr.. Macdonald said that he was in
great favor Of road or street being a
public possession. and was not in favor
of taxing the abutting owners to any
great extent. He said that there was no IA
such thing as a permanent pavement:
they would all wear out. He thought
that the bill should provide that a third "
of its cost should be paid by the abut-
ting owner He did not believe in re-
leasing the abutting owner from all
assessment. The limit of assessments
named in the bill-s125 per foot for
granite blocks, 81 for asphalt, rs cents
for vitrif1ed brick and so cents for
crushed stone--he thought was too high.
Asked to suggest figures, he said: Take
all pavements and base the limit OH
one-third of the cost per square yard
probably rs cents per front foot on
granite blocks and so cents on asphalt"
He said he thought only one kind Of
asphalt would be laid in New Haven
for some time Any Of those with some
resistance would be preferable In New
Haven. He suggested fifty cents per
front foot for vitrified brick and twenty
cents for crushed stone pavements. lie
said that he believed in general taxa
tion for these pavements. He thought
brick cutters would be wise. He oppos-
ed gutter stones because where they are
laid without concrete base they were
as the dirt works down
through the interstices and crowds the
stone cutters up to the level Of the curb.
All pavements, he thought, should be-
laid on a concrete base at least four
inches in depth.
Prentice W. Chase asked him as to his
opinion concerning assessing the city,
one dollar and abutting property own
ers to pay the balance.
Mr.. Macdonald said that he thought
hat it would be better to be definite
with the property owner and a little in
definite with the city. He thought ana
asserted again that the major part OF
he cost of any permanent Improvement
should be paid by the city. He said
hat he had no reference to streets where
for pavements have been
llready paid.
Mayor Farnsworth spoke Of the inn
practical bility Of the present pavement
aw in that 1t provided for the issue Of
,onds to lay pavements and then for
he use of the money received from as
essments for other purposes. He said
hat nothing had yet been received from
assessments. He claimed that the court
f common council had not yet fixed the
ime for payment Of assessments. He
aid that he knew of some cases where
he present law works hardship, and
hat lawyers said that until the ques-
ion of benefits and damages was pass
d upon no assessments could be coll
scted. He said that the city would
Ike to collect some of the $20S,000 worth
assessments, but hadn't collected
ollar of it yet He said that prior to
eginning to lay asphalt and brick
avements 100000 was spent for per-
lament pavement-crusheds stone-with-
ut any attempt at assessment, all
nough the law requiring assessments
or them was in the ordinances. He
aid that under the present paving act
1ere were properties where the laying
{ a pavement would be detriment
ather than a benefit to property, but
1e law for assessments was there, new
'theless He said that 1t was when
[r. HoIcomb was mayor that the lay-'
lg of pavements without assessment