The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1901-03-26
BALDWIN AVE. HEARING.
Several Property Owners
Object to the Proposed
Assessme n t.

The Street Committee of the Street and
Water Board this morning gave a hear
ing to those objecting to the confirmation
of the final assessment map for the OPEN
ing and proposed improvement of Bald-'
win avenue. Commissioner Nolan pre-
sided. The hearing was held in the AS
sembly Chamber of the City Hall.
Ex-senator William D. Edwards ap-
peared for an association of taxpayers
who live north of st. Pauls avenue.
James Young also appeared, representing
the Continental Investment Company.
which owns great number of lots in the
area assessed for the opening and pro-
posed improvement of the thoroughfare
in question.
Mr.. Edwards, on behalf of his clients,
emphasized the fact that none of them
objected to assessment for the improving,
but for the opening of the thoroughfare.
on the ground that its opening was of
no benefit to the property assessed. Mr..
Edwards briefly described the efforts that
led up to the opening of the thoroughfare
and said that the original petition was
mainly signed by Marcus Beach Qately
deceaseO, the Mcpherson estate, Messrs.
Davy, Bray and Cameron, and that only
for the opening of the street from New
ark avenue to Hoboken avenue, and that
their properties were the principal ones
benefited, and should bear the brunt of
the cost. He explained the position of
Bonner street, and told how it was de-
cided to connect it with the opening of
Baldwin avenue on the south and Webster
avenue on the north.
Procuring the final assessment map he
spread it in front of the Commissioners
and cited cases of alleged unjust assess
ment He wanted to know what advan-
tage was the opening of the thoroughfare
to assessed property owners in Sherman
avenue. He picked out various properties
from the map at random, he said, and
first citing lot on the northeast corner
of Laidlaw avenue and Bowers street,
nearly mile away from the location it
was at first proposed to open. 1t was as
sessed at $32s.75. He asked the Comnis-
sioners if they thought the owner of the
property could get that much more for
the property on account of the opening.
Commissioner Heintze's reply was in
audible to the audience. Next was cited
the northeast corner of Webster avenue
and Prospect street, assessed at $253.
more for her property" Mr.. Edwards
asked.
Yes, do,'' replied Commissioner
Heintze.
Mr. Edwards cited other specimens "at
random, in that enighborhood and then
jumped to Congress street and from there
to the Paterson plank road, "the jump
ing off place. where piece of property
-r
several miles away. He maintained that
outside of the property of the original
petitions, Beach, Mcpherson estate, Bray
& Co, no property was Immediately bene-
fiated, but that the opening up of the
street was benefit to the city at large.
Garwood Ferris, Assessment Commits
sioner, in defence of the final assess
ment, said that the cost of the opening
Sup of the thoroughfare was expensive,
including the taking of buildings, lots,
ETC.. and said that the parties who re-
ceived the awards kicked vigorously, de-
claring that the awards were too low.
He said the net amount expended was
500, 40, thirty per cent. of which, some
$2S, 900, would be borne by the city at
large. Mr.. Ferris said he regretted that
his colleagues, Messrs. Schultz and Cor
don, were not present. He said the Com
missioners had the counsel of the late
Engineer Fowler. who advised them as
70 the scope of assessments in such i'm
proyements.
Mr.. Edwards pointed out the alleged
exorbitant prices paid the Erie Railroad
Company for certain lots and declared
his poor clients should not have to pay
for them.
Mr.. James Young, representing the Con-
tinental Investment Company, said the
| company owned lots in the vicinity as
sessed at between $4,000 and $100, Goo; that
| taxes paid on this property last year
| amounted to 5000, and said that if taxed
for the opening of Baldwin avenue ac-
| cording to the final assessment map, the
taxes and assessments next year would
reach $4,000. He declared that the COM
panys property had not been benefited
| by the opening of the avenue and cited
! a case where a lot was sold last week
for less money than its assessed valua-
/ ton.
! George r. Beach protested against as
sessment of property on Wetmore street,
which did not even have an outlet on
Baldwin avenue.
The Street and Water Committee point
| ed out the fact that the final assessment
map names figures for the total cost of
| the Improvement far less then the pre-
liminary map-on estimated cost of the
| opening and Improvement of the avenue,
and asked why no objections were made
when the preliminary map was filed.
The preliminary map showed the fol-
lowing igures:-Opening, s105, ~; bene-
! fits, S76,7 ,794, leaving the city at large to
pay S2S,650 Improvement, Sl2531 bene-
fits, $l0,5s7. leaving the city to pay $1.s64.
| The final map shows the following fig
ures.-
/ Opening $ss, 40; benefits, s6s, ,660.25; leav-
| ing the city to pay, $27,S .75- Improve
ment, $11,4lS.79 benefits, S10009, leaving
| the city to pay $1,409.79.
LOOKING up TAX METHODS.