New-York tribune., 1901-05-19
JUGGLING IN SIDEWALKS
HOW THE TAMMANY GOVERNMENT
TREATED PROPERTY OWNERS IN
EIGHTH-AvE. AND CEN
TECT
TRIAL PARK WEST.

Proceedings before the courts to reduce as
sessments for relaytng sidewalks in Eighth-ave.
and in Central Park West expected to show
how many property owners have been robbed by
one department of the Tammanyized city govern
nent working for the interests Of the favored con-
tractors. The assessments were confirmed by the
Board OF Revision December 2s 1906 after a
hearing In which many witnesses were examined.
1t was shown by the testimony that when the
change ot motive power was made in the street
railroad in Eighth-ave. and Central Park West
there were many changes IN the grades Of the
cutters. These changes were made arbitrarily by
the Department OF Highways and. the curb
stones We're raised in some places and lowered in
other places. orders 70 relay the sidewalks were
issued Contracts for the work given by the
Department OF Highways. and the work was
done bills Of the contractors paid by the city
and the expense was assessed against the property
The Board Of Assessors listened 10 the objections
OF the property owners, and heard considerable
testimony TO sustain the objections. and then re-
ferred the TO the Board of Revision, which
passed the assessments The objections of the
property owners were made on several grounds. II
IS declared that price charged by the contrac-
tors for relaying sidewalks has been outrage
ously high. 1t is asserted that the contractors
carried away the hagstones in some cases. laid
down inferior Tagging and then charged the prop
erty owners for tagging. Some of the property
owners said they had paid for good Tagging only
q few years before the change Of grades and they
had been assessed for reiaying the sidewalks more
than they originally paid for them.
John H. Ireland one Of the property owners
who testified. He presented bills for q new side
walk which he had laid in front OF his property in
Eighth-ave.. between Fif.y-third and Fifty-fourth
SITS. in 1880 I had the sidewalk laid according 10
law. ne testified. and expected that II would be
there for years. was surprised when my tenant
told me that my sidewalk had been taken up again
When an inspector came along and I objected he
said he didn't give damn, that he was going to
Iake II up anyway The result that Mr..
Ireland was assessed both for relaying the side
walk and for several fagstones which were
put IN place Of those which the inspector OF the
department. OF Highways had condemned
Joseph II. Goodwin testified that his father was
the owner OF property In One-half the block in
Ientral PARK West. between Sixty-hfth and Sixty
sixth sts. he produced bills for sidewalks that had
been laid in front of the property 1881 together
with certificate signed by E. 2. North the en-
gtneer of the Depa. .trnent of Public Works. that
the tagging had been laid A good grade ''aIl
requirements being met and that the sidewalks
were TN good condition" The Tagging cost S3i2 in
count or reayiHS the sidewalks and setting in
some new Tagging amounted 500 Mr.. Goodwin
objected vigorously 10 the charges Of the Tam
many contractors. but the assessments were con-
hrmed with the rest.
real estate agent who had charge OF the prop
erty at Nos $50 and 252 EIghth-ave. testified that
property wore worse than the old sidewalks. Be
Tore the city did this work" he testified, there
had ordered put in. When the flags removed
tne gratinss were not put back. Commissioner
heating said they would be attended to. but the
work has not been done. The pipes are there but
they cannot get the proper air vents"
IN some cases property owners testified that they
were assessed more than $500 for reIaytng side
by private contractors for $50 1t was said that in
some cases when nagstones rejected TO en-
aoIe the city contractor TO lay new ones. the old
blocks away.