Waterbury evening Democrat., 1906-02-23
ASSESSMENT BUREAU
,|Dr. Rodman Submitted Map With
 Proposed New Street.

NJ The bureau of assessment held a tmeeting last night and heard property le0wners in the layout of Pine street hfrOm the boulevard to Cooke strect.
 tmnd of Fairmount street from Luke
 :Istreet southerly to the Mulcahy school
 tyrhere was no objection to q fifty-foot broadway on Pine street but many or hthe property owners said they should hwant compensation for such land as biwould be taken for that purpose. One blwoman said that if the street is to lbe widened to width of fifty feet EIwhat is needed should be taken from
 the side of the highway encroached
 tupon years ago when the street was
 '|hearly hundred feet wide. Mr f]Spencer thought this was going back
 ibretty far and wanted to know if the H|lady didn't think it would be nice
 lithing to have q nice forty-foot street Pithere now with sidewalks and other
 Improvements.
 '.l'he proposition is all right but it Idwill benefit others as well as me and eiif land is to be taken think should I1get damages and those who will con
 attribute no land to make the wider Hstreet can afford to pay me. have yimanaged to get up and down there
 flor the past fifty years with the street
 las it is and worse. for remember Il lwhen you couldn't get far beyond my
 afathers house with anything but an Jox team and guess I can weather it Il out for the rest of the years that are
 left to me-
 Thomas FitzsimOns of the Watar-
 .Ibury Manufacturing company was Ianother interesting speaker. Mir Spen- II Ll1a,. T 1.r rytyv isome land but after looking over the Il map it developed that an average of ! 1.-two feet deep will be taken from him. E4IWhen NIT Fitzsimons heard this he liremarked that he considered it new ttmethod of addition when the taking
 qof land from him Is termed giving him
 lsome But Nr Fitzsimons was in good tihumor and assured the board that he il tIwouldn't be hard upon the city and HItbat probably he should call the Dene- T ktfits and damages equal. Charles Tom II |1Illnson and Alexander Plumbly said lthey should claim damages for the Il Hand which it is proposed to take from l. lithem. Charles TempletOn said that lie II klwanted no damages for what he was II t1going to lose and besides he would be Il IJ willing to pay reasonable benefits in Il lIorder to get the layout and grade which Il he considered great benefit to people Il who want to take up permanent resi- Il dences there but probably matter Of Il lI little moment to those who want to Il E1 erect houses there for rent or for sale. Il Pd No action was taken.
 Il M On the Fairmount street matter Dr Il f1 Rodman submitted map showing Il E4 what he considers much better lay | n out than the one that has caused all I the trouble. It proposes street run i ming through his property in direct F1 line with Rye street to a point at the foot of the hill east of the school and hence northerly to Luke street. He q objected to the old one on the ground s{ that 1t cut up his property so badly A that he is obliged to ask for damages. H Patrick O'Reilly was indifferent about b) the layout under discussion. He has
 all the room he wants in order to en- sI able him to improve the rear of his s property and doesn't care whether the ld street goes through or not. In any M case he didn't consider 1t anything that he should be assexseI ,f2riDlf 4lie street should be opehed Tie Will have
 to put down a sidewalk and pay a I1 portion of q sewer assessment and then he will not have any more prop erty than he has at the present time. Ia Martin Scully said that while he Il didn't grudge the board it's good for ID tune in being reelected, he regretted | that the question of benefits and dam ages arising from the layout of Fair | mount street was not to come before I d body of men who could approach it with less prejudice that the present
 one, for having once committed them
 selves 10 the contention that he had
 no rights in the premises he thought
 it would be difficult to convince them
 of anything to the contrary regardless
 of what the city attorney or anybody
 .else might say. He said his position on the matter hadn't changed any | since the time he first saw the pr0pos- | cd layout. He would claim damages
 in case the street goes through.
 In reply to a question from Mr Pil-
 ling as to what he thought of the new
 proposition. AIr Scully said it was a
 good thing for Dr Rodman and for the
 neighborhool, big improvement on
 the other. but as the map showed that even this plan would leave him only four lots in block of land where under other arrangements he would have eight. he felt constrained to say that while he would not oppose it he should claim some damages and he thought the owner of the property specially benefited would cheerfully pay.
 The board looked over both plans hut took no action. It Is likely that they will let the Fairmount street mat ter stand until the other comes before