Waterbury evening Democrat., 1905-01-11

Among the proposed charter amend ments is one pertaining to sidewalks and while it appears to be getting lost in the shutile it is of far more i'm portance than some of the drafts which are receiving a great deal of at tention. Until the present year the law put the entire cost of the con struction. maintenance. including ! cleanin. and sanding during the win ter months. on the owners of property abutting upon sidewalks.
 The law never worked we'll because everybody knew it was a hardship to throw the whole burden on few and as result the walks never were ill proper condition for public travel. With q view to putting small share of the expense on the plfiic the last session of the general assembly was petltloned to change the law so that repairs would be made by the city. This act went into effect during the present year, but it fell into hostile hands and 1t didn't take them long to make it appear ridiculous. There was absolutely no system ill the doing of the work and to make things worse two prices were paid for the job. one man getting S2.S00 worth of work at 54 cents d yard. while later on q very competent and reliable contractor of. fered to perform such work for I25 cents q yard. Along towards the fall the board of public works recommend cd to the aldermen that the law be repealed and that an order be passed putting the entire cost on abuttins property owners: in other words. that the city return to the old plan. It was tabled by the aldermen. but it is not likel y to be left there, for the men in- terested in putting it through don't balk at tri11es.
 Some of the city officials deem it wise to ask the legislature to pass q law which will compel the local au. thorities to spend certain sum annu- ally on parks. but they don't believe the city should put out penny on walks That portion of the streets covered by sidewalks belongs to the city in the same sense that the rest of the thoroughfares do and there is no justice in forcing the, owners of pri- rate property to pay for them. The abutting property owners are benefit ed some over and above others bv the construction of sidewalk, but it | would be the height of folly to claim that they deTise~the whole benefit
 What about the public that uses thein Nin common with the a9utting property owners: This is one reason why working people are being detcrred from huy.nr building lots and putting houses on them as they used to in the past It would seem that the policy of the city government was to dis courage rather than stimulate a dispo- Sition on the part of the people to aim at owning homes of their own. Iher" appears. tO be nothing too good for the man who wants to while away his time in the park. but the cit izen who has but little time for leisure iii places of public amusement gets scant consideration from the lawm~- CTS. He is met by the assessors. coi- Jared by the collector abused by the superintendent of streets. threatenJi and fnallv haled into court by an of. iicer if he fails to do thus and SC. While all this is going on the idIer in the tavern or Or1 the hench in [ park laughs and thanks God that ht never was foolish enough to own any thing. while the hard headed man who has his money tucked away in the bank becomes more and more con vinced that tl@ little interest he gets in the bank is far better than he could do with his earnings by putting it into real estate and making himself cvnrvbody's football
 If Is not the purpose of this article to discourage the spending of reason ahle sums for places of recreation or ii-ld fault with public officials for per forming their duties. The end in view iS to show the unfairnesS and Snd re- suits Of forcing laws unon citizens which give on" pnrtiC'r of the Deo0le q big advantage over their neighhors. It is not So in ";hAr placeS. Take for cNamnle the city nf Worcester. where large share of ti-a cost 0f the side walks iS met bv the public. and they never have Snarl ahont walks. For ibr infnrmatinn of those who want tn reel section or two of the worces fer laWs OH this point we quote the following:
 S~tinn 2. The expense of con Srrnctinc pr repairtlg arv sidewalk laid out and established as aforesaid rr any siJewsiE heretofore established. shall he a. sa>>",I rpnn the lbuttpr~. hut nn part ,. ihe expense of grading. setting the rIrhSt"uc "r navin. thc gutterS Shal. he >o a>srSSe.I. but shall be paid by ;Ic city.
 To you see tbc difference: Harc tlrr saddle tho whole rnst onto thp aIuttorS with the exception Of the gut t,-rS.
 Another great hardship in Water hErv is inc ordering of sidewalks in -I.arSciv settled districts for the so. 'nmm~lation of few neonis. regarI- i'~S of how such tactics affect OtieT iT terP>ts. This Situation is met al N"rccstcT ny 1ba following ordinance: See 2-Tbc city council may FIUse ier"nOrary Tnntuarh< 0T walks t1 he era'cd or constructed. at the expense o- the citv. in front Of vacant lots os elsewhere where the nu',iic convenience ur interest does not reqUire that per Hianant walks shall bc lIii out and established and such temporary walks sEall ba Sri7ie-t t1 all inc restrictions and regulations crntSinei in fiiS cIsap- IeT.
 What is r9eant bv the last hint iu the above section fs tilst the temporary 2 ak shall have -a he cieausi iT,S- tils st, s-