New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1905-04-02
THE FIATBUsH SUBWAY WRAycLE.

The wrangle, which at present seems TO
amount TO a deadlock over the Flatbush sub
way is much 20 be regretted, since il portends
indefinite delay 10 a public work of real i'm
portanee and urgency. Probably no part Of the
whole metropolis has fer some years been grow
ing more rapidly than the region beyond Pros
peel Park which is still somewhat indefinitely
known as Flatbush. and we do not know that
any other part is more in need OF improved
transit facilities. The subway route rs planned
appears in the main 10 be well planned. and
there can he no doubt that the tunnel ought TO
he constructed without unnecessary delay 1t
IS meeting with delay however. and. indeed
with a complete blockade. at the hands of the
Brooklyn Park Commissioner II appears shat
the subway people want radically 10 appro-
pirate a portion of Prospect Park for RAILROAD
purposes. They want that is 20 say. 10 con-
struct a storage yard underneath the park.
which would Involve the destruction Of the
trees overhead. To that the Park Commits
sioner win not give his consent
Upon the face Of the case, so far as the facts
have been made 10 appear, we must say the
Park Commissioner is IN the right. 1t would
he a wicked thing thus TO despon one Of the
lOveiest pleasure grounds in the world The
part OF Prospect Park In question is particu-
larry attractive for its noble forest trees, grow
lng in a state OF nature. II is little less than a
bit OF primeval forest set in the heart Of the
city The proposition is 20 destroy about two
hundred Of the trees When we consider how
entirely irreparable such loss would be, and
how much the park I'm its present state means
10 multitudes Of people. il is evident that such
a sacrifice would be a high price 10 pay for even
80 great a convenience as a subway, even If II
were absolutely necessary. We have. however
seen no convincing proof that it is necessary,
or that il is anything more than an attempt to
COnfscate public property for private gain. In
that view Of II, the scheme is hopelessly repre-
hensible.
We do not suppose any one VIII pretend that
under the park is the only possible place in
which a storage yard can be constructed There
,s inst as much room at the other side OF the
street why not put II there? Oh. but that is
,r,vote property, and the owners would have
- ~ Maid for such use OF e. OF course; but
che marx. being public property. IS 10 be taken
,-,tbont paying for Il, is TT A lne arrange
,,oDt tFllvl That park is worth as much TO
80 ,citv-that S. the people-as the opposite
--o,arfv Is worth 70 its individual owners.
1Tro-,Id the subway people still insist upon tax
- sbo mark II they were required 10 pay for
- - ne same rate that they would have 70
- Co. the adjacent private property? More
over. there does not seem 70 De any insuperaOie
$1,000 10 putfing the storage yard somewhere
else where public property inignt De laAen TOT
.,,,-,t any such loss 10 the city as spoliatiOn
20 sbe park would entail Al me WINK en-.
sronoe 70 the park there Is efe4l eAl'alse :,
rtreet and plaza, practicaliy treeiess- Al MoulA
- No harm 10 undermine u TOT a siOi1eS 49, -.
~ n the yard must De Iurlner o., 49,, W =. .os
-. !. --,der the Parade GrOunds That Is