Waterbury Democrat., 1903-01-23
AN INTERESTIN G CASE.
That Waterbury Property Owners are
 Watching With Interest.

Watching With Interest.
 Property owners in Waterbury will watch with some interest the case of Matthew McMa ahon of Meriden. who has gone into the courts to see whether or not he can be compelled to keep the sidewalk in front of his property clear or ice and snow. It is a wonder the Meriden man didn't put up his fight when he was ordered to construct the walk at his own expense. This is a law which never should have been put on the statute books, and there is little douDt but that the courts will decide that 1t Is unconstitutional. There may De some reason in requiring man to Keep the walk abutting his premises clear of ice and snow, but there does not appear to be any fairness in fore Ing him to lay the walk and bear all the, cost. Why? Because the walk does not belong to the man whose property abuts upon, but to the town or city in which 1t is located. It is amusing to hear public officials and private individuals puzzling themselves now and then to find out who owns certain walks that are in a dangerous condition. while as matter of fact every walk in the city is public proper " and belongs to the municipality. What silly fellow one would be con sidered if he should be seen nosing about to get little information regard ing the owner of street that he thought ought to be fixed. and vet the bull would not be any bigger than that Of the man who wants to know who owns a sidewalk. Of course the law says abuttfng property owners shall construct and maintain the walks. but even so, that does not put him in pos session or the property nor give him any more rights in M than his neigh Dor who lives on side street and who has no walk of his own. but kicks be- cause everybody else hasn't. The pIb- lie owns the sidewalks. the public uses them and there is no sense of fairness l in contendfng that private individuals should hear the entire expense of bulld- ing and maintaining them. People who cannot afford to pay their taxes paint and naper their houses as often as they would like to. have to step out side Their property line and build walks for the accommodation of the public. Any citizen who is haled into l court and fined for not complying with an order to build sidewalk Is entitled to the sympathy of every man who be- | to pay other peoples bills. It is hard to disabuse some property owners of l the notion that thev don't own the walks in front of their premises | Whats the reason people who take a tumble on slippery walks ask the city to settle instead of the so-called owner?
 How comes it that, after putting down a walk the "owner" can he fined for ob- str1cting it? Why don't people who
 want to set posts in walks go to the
 property owners instead of to the city
 government? That portion of the
 street on which sidewalks are laid be- longs to the city just the same as the roadbed does. and there is more justice
 in sadding the cost of the walks onto
 private individuals than there would
 be in directing them to open and main
 tain streets for public use and fining | them for not complying with the order. This sidewalk law is bone of con-
 tention all over tthe state and it is
 hoped that Attorney Danaher, counsel
 for MT McMaihon, will push the case and see that it is settled one way or the other. Waterbury has been wrest- l ling with the question for years and the fight is still on. To-day Superintendent
 Kelley of the street department turned | two eases over to the prosecuting at I torney, one for failing to comply with l an order of the board of aldermen to l lay walk and the other for not keep
 ing walk clear of ice and snow. The
 alleged offender is George Abbott. the
 contractor. In Waterbury some of the officials take the ground that the city l should bear portion of the expense of
 laying new walks and assess the rest
 as benefits against the abutting prop 1~L LI4 o4A 1nNrnx sy1 repair. Theoretically there would be
 nothing wrong in having the city do l the cleaning but such a thing is not considered practicable because it would be out of the question to secure enough I men to do the work on time to meet public convenience. Some claim that the abutting property owners are bene- I f1ted over and above others to the ex-
 tent of the cost of setting the curbing, laying the walk and keeping it clean.
 while others claim that the city should
 pay part of the first cost. All are of
 one mind. however, so far as the need
 of change in the law regulating the
 laying of sidewalks, and probably the agitation that has been started in Mer-
 iden may bring it to head. Thes
 board of public works of this city has
 requested the city attorney to prepare
 and submit to them a draft of bill
 providing that sidewalks be laid and
 cleaned by the abutting property own
 ers at their own expense. the city to
 keep them in repair. If the board of
 public works, the aldermen and the
 mayor can agree upon this question it
 Is probable that the matter will come
 before the present session of the gen
 eral assembly.
 | tstt .H
 White House Reception.