Waterbury evening Democrat., 1906-12-11
BOARD OF ALDERMEN
City VIM Pu Down Sidewalks
 Acesrllas ts Last Nights Vote.

II,
 A large representation from Ei-
 monsville, Brooklyn and Town Plot
 was in attendance, but none of them
 said anything in public, but many of
 them did some lobbying before the
 board was called to order.
 Several applications for new
 work were received including big 1 batch from SimonsviIIe asking for ! grades, layouts and building lines on 1 Baldwin avenue. Piedmont street,
 Tracy avenue, lower South Main street and nearly every other street ], in that district. These and other mat
 ters of similar nature were referred
 to the board of public works.
 On recommendation of the board
 of safety. William Luke was elected
 a constable to do duty at Turn nall
 and Timothy Hennessy to act in Mel chizedeck cemetery. The board of ed- ucation asked that James Tyrrell and
 James Clafey school janitors, be
 chosen constables. The matter was referred to the board of safety for investigation and report.
 The recommendation of the board of public works that the city at t0rney he directed to secure the pas sage of an amendment to the charter authorizing the city to lay sidewalks l and charge half the cost to abutting property owners, the law to go into effect on July 1. 1907, brought out 6 hot debate, but there was no politics in 1t, for some Of the republicans pitched into their friends and gave them bad drubbing. When it came up Mir Filling called Vice Chairman Buck to the chair and taking the floor himself he spoke ill opposition to the
 proposed amendment. His principal
 reason was that the law as it now
 stands puts all the cost on private
 property owners. He said others had
 paid Ill full and he didn't see any fair
 ness in making it less now. Mir
 Filling moved that to amend the
 draft so that it would read that the
 entire cost be assessed against abutt-
 ing property. MT Larkin and Mir Fitz-
 simons spoke in favor of the amend
 ment, giving as their reasons that
 they didn't think it fair to those who
 have paid the whole cost.
 Alderman Sherwood said he felt
 constrained to vote against the
 amendment and support the original
 question. q have always felt" said
 the alderman from the second, that the sidewalks are n part of the n l. clpality and should be cared for by 1t. The only fault I have with the original draft is that 1t does not go far enough and put the entire cost where 'it belongs. on the public, but shall favor it because it is step in the right direction even though it does come short of what should like to vote for What sense is there in '"'''"" eh"nt what we have been doing. It is So that because a law was e...., .o,i some years ago and kept in force up to now we must suffer it for all time. Everybody wants good sidewalks and don't sec why il small portion of the community should be obliged to meet this expense"
 Alderman Walker said that this is no experiment, adding that some of the most progressive cities in New England had already adopted the plan and found that 1t paid. In Worcester he said they had the same trouble that we have been having here. but with a scheme like this it was over- come and cost much less than the old way which was both expensive and unsatisfactory.
 Alderman Nell knew, he said. that | the proposed change would save mon- l ey to the rate payers of Waterbury. | because when q walk Is laid under | the change as recommended it will | be done wei, and won't need repairs | In year or so as is the case under ! the present arrangement. The depart- | nent of public works had given this | matter a great deal of consideration |, and was convinced that it would pay | to have the city build the walks and that inasmuch as everybody uses them and they belong to the munici- pality it would not be fair to assess Ihe whole against private individuals.
 Mir Filings amendment was finally put and lost. This was followed by | mother motion from Mir Filling in the form of m amendment that the date be fixed at January 1. 1908 instead of July 1. 1907. This also was lost. Then the original motion was stated md Mir Goss and Mr Elton took lew whacks at 1t. They didn': see now the city could deal with property owners who might want various kinds of material. Mir Walker said hat this Is what they wanted to do iway with. the business of allowing to nut down a walk to suit 1is own notion. The result of this s seen. he said. In the kinds of walks We have in Waterbury. The alder nan reminded the board that ia Worcester and other progressive New towns where they have uni form walks 1t Is pleasant sight to Itand at one end of n street and look It the nice even surface of the side walks.
 Alderman Lawlor said he thought he unsatisfactory condition of the walks sufficient evidence that there Is something wrong with the pressn. aw. All over New Engiand and \ trough the west. he said. the walks Ire much better than here. and when -ou inquire the reason why you tnd hat they gre laid under a different Han. He said that he believed Mir Walker bad the right idea and that [ was for the best interest sf Water .ury to adopt the recommendation of h. l,osri of pubic works.
 When tho motion was put 1ll ti.e democrats and Mr Sberwe.i ani Mr Maker voted in favor of 1t and tue ,thrrs said no making ninc yeas md six nocS. Mir Filling vho was tiII on the floor remarked that it rr- Iuired a fwotbirl vote and having l, hat the motion vas lost. Mr Burs.