The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-11-20
HAFFEN And HOUSEMOVERS
LETTER FROM law DEPART
MENT TO BRONN PRESIDENT.
The Game Of Waxing the a1ty BUY the
same House over and over Should Ic
Resisted and Maybe Nr. I!aGen Had
BETTER Amend IT'S Ordinance n Little

HfSlNteI AHu NNNDt VIZ. tsIlltu ktNu
BETTER Amend Ills Ordinance n Little
A request for permission to Harold Swain
to move a building across a highway in The
Bronx. which was submitted ly Borough
President Haifen TO the Corporation Coun-
sells Office for an opinion. ron Cht forth a
reply yesterday of an uncompl!mentay
nature. The matter was submitted by Mr..
Hafen on August 81, when John }. Delany
was Corporation Counsel, hut il was left
to Mr.. Delany's successor, William b. Eli
son, to give the opinion. which says;
The opening of streets and development
of The Bronx has created apparently Il new
industry to the detriment OF the city. which
consists of buying houses on property taken
and then Transporting these houses to
vacant property which is known to oc
about to be taken by the city"
The opinion also says that IL is stated
that the ordinance regulating house NOV
ing was drawn in Mr.. Haffen's Office. and
that whether by accident or not it was so
framed as to facilitate the scheme of max
ing the city condemn and pay for the sa me
The ordinance Of which the Corporation
Counse speaks reads
An ordinance 20 provide for the removal of build
ings into, along or across any lane or avenue or any
public place In the borough Of The Bronx In the
city OF New York.
Bc II ordained by the Board Of Aldermen Of the
city OF New NOrl, aS follows:
No person shall remove or cause or permit TO bc
removed. or shall aid or assist IN removing any
building into, along or across any street, Avenue.
lane. alley or public place I'm the borough OF The
Bronx In the city of New Norl; without permission
of the President o. Sald borough under the penalty
nf t1Nn hundred and nftN dollars tSp5Ul for each
offence.
Adopted by tn" Board NJ Aldermen July ~. 1870
Approved by the acting Mayor Angus 10, 1874.
Or the house moving industry the opinion
says:
The house having been once paid for is
paid for again At the new location. is bou ght
in again and removed TO another site TO be
acquired by the citv, is then paid for again,
and 50 on indefinitely.
This scheme was originally praCtiscd in
! connection with proceeding for acquiring
property for aQucduCt and reservoir pur-
poses and the Improvement Of the watershed,
and has been found quite troublesome and
expensive to the city.
1t apparently is now proposed under pro-
lection of the ordinance in question to con
duct this business in the borough OF The
Bronx.
In the case | have in mind the same house
| has already Dttn several llHleS Ddlu lot,
and II is understood to be the house, the re-
moval of which is sought to be accomplished
under cover of the ordinance already men
toned. | need not say that it. is your duty
to oppose 10 the fullest extent the perpetra-
ton Of what really is n fraud upon the city.
and not TO assist in such a scheme nor permit
its accomplishment. If you can prevent il.
IL is stated that the ordinance was drawn
in your Office, but il not only does not protect
tho sify hut Khafbpr nv anCidOnt nr not
Is so. framed as to facilitate the scheme OF
mulCting the city.
In reply to your communication have to
say that I advise you not to issue any permit
under circumstances easily TO be bclie we'd,
that the proposed removal OF a house II In
furthersnce of a fraudulent scheme to place
IL upon other properly which Is to he taken
by the city. and which will cause the city to
pay over again the value of this house already
paid for.
Think. also. il is your duty TO repair the in
jury which may result from the form of the
ordinance Us prepared in your Office by re-
q~uesting the Board of Aldermen to pass an
amended ordinance consisting Of the ordi-
dance now in force. but with a further pro-
vision, AZ follows:
The permission OF the President Of TIE said
borough may be granted or refused by him in his
disc retion.
This will give you an opportunity to eN-
anime iRt6the merits of each case and to eSer-
else intelligc ntly a POWER very liable to abuse.
The final result Of my examination OF the
question is that In the present case you should
grant no permit for the removal Of the house
in question until compelled to do 80 by the
decision Of the court Of last resort.
In the Supreme Court last May Swain
applied to Justice Scott for a mandamus
to comUe al the Sup erfhtendcnt of Buildings
in The Bronx TO grant a Kermit TO move
"A house 10 a new site, and evidence was
offered that the house had been moved
several times before, and in several cases
10 land about to be condemn 81 by the city,
but Justice Scott did not see any remedy.
Capt. J. X. Price. who owns several ieccI
of property in tho eighborhood, was the
man who complained TO the Building Sur or
intendent that besides the house that Swain
wanted To move there ho had several other
houses which he "a moved around ad
damnandum.
THE BOROUGH P~REsIDENT's WATER BUCKET.
A Tribune reporter who went to Borough
President Hafien's home, at 524 East I62d
street, 10 ask hin about the story, got no
response when he rang the doorbell twice,
hut he got a big bucket Of water emptied
on him from a second story window as he
walked down the stoop.