Waterbury evening Democrat., 1905-04-14
SEWER CONNECTIONS.
lntsfsstia5 QusssIea lstvssn JeAn
 ciImous Ana tho Cj,y Rniineer.

a7 t I. 4a The tilt between John Gilmour and the engineer regarding the right to connect with the sewer on Aetna street until the assessment is paid opened up quite an interesting question. When hearings are held and assessments laid in the. usual manner as provided for in the charter property owner may connect with the sewer even though none of the money has betAl paid in. This Is all right because the law has been compiled with by the city and it is in a position to put a lien on the property for the amount of the assessment and this is done Unless the bill is paid promptly. In the other case you cannot do this because the city can't collect an assessment for q public improvement unless the prop erty owners directly affected by it have been notified of the intention to do such a work and given an oppor- tlmity to be heard in the premises. If this order is not followed the assess ment must be paid before the permit to connect is issued. It may look like an arbitrary method, but if you stop to look at it there is more fairness in 1t than in the law as provided for in the charter. Sewers are often con- structed in front of large tracts of un. developed property for the accommo- dation of a few people and tlIe as- sessment levied at the same time, peo- pie who have no immediate need of 1t having to pay as promptly as. those who want 1t right away. This often works a great hardship to owners of undeveloped property, but it is done that way because the city could not afford to construct sewers the same as 1t lays water mains, for which no al- rect charge Is made until the property owner connects with the system. Sew CTS were laid to the Webster, Walsh and Mulcahy schools without hearings, consequently no assessments were levied against the owners of property at either side of the streets tnrdhgh which they passed, but according as people found it necessary to use these sewers they paid the usual assessment and that was all there was to 1t. It was worth something to the property owners not to be asked tp pay for the sewer if they didn't have use for 1t. and it would he good thing if the law were so that all sewers should be con structed on that basis and every body who had house on his property con- pelled to connect with them. This would do away with the objection to sewers on the part of people who have no building to connect with them and would also put the service within reach of all who wanted it. To be sure the sewer enhances the value of 1lndeveloped property, but even so 1t is not the good fortune of everybody who owns several hundred feet of brush land to be able to pay big sewer assessment on land from that he cannot dispose of and which is yield ing no income. There is not a prop erty owner in Waterbury but would welcome the sewer provided it should be constructed on the same plan as the one on Aetna street was laid.
 The question now .being asked Is would a court order the city to issue the permit and let the officials take such steps as they saw fit to collect the bill. Some say this is what n court would do. but others think dit
 ferently and there you are. If the nuisance complained of can be abated without using the sewer that will set tie the snarl. but 1t is doubtful if this can be done so that no matter which wins 1t looks as if the connection will have to be made. It is not the de- mand for the payment of the assess ment that reused Mir Gilmour's ire, but the questioning of his word to see that it was paid. for MT Gilmour has always made it point to be as good as his word and naturally he felt hurt over being denied the permit unless he had fine cash in his hand.