Waterbury evening Democrat., 1907-10-31
BALDWlNSTREET WALL
Commissioners Should Treat All
 Parts oi City Alike.

public safety with reference to the construction of retaining wall on Baldwin street is peculiar, to say the least. They claim it would prop erly belong to the city to build 1t pro- vided that it is not on private prop erty. This is where the commission CTS are lame. Who ever saw re- taining wall built in the street or on the sidewalk? All retaining walls skirting public streets rest upon priv ate property. Does MT Walker take the ground that the handsome wall which the city has erected on High land avenue is on any property own ed by him or his neighbors? Doesn't MT Nell know that the expensive re- taining wall built and pushed to con- pletion largely through his efforts in front of the Egan property on Camp street is on private property? These are cited because they are fresh in the public mind, but if one cared to go back few years he could show that in all cases where the city creates a condition which necessitates the construction of retaining wall the work is done at public expense and in no instance does the wall stand on the walk or in the street.
 Commissioners Nell and Dennlsor think they see reason why there IS no obligation upon the city to build wall on Baldwin street because the city has not done anything there in recent years which changed the situ- ation from what 1t has been for a long time, but what does that amount to? It simply emphasizes the truth of what has been said repeatedly that such work as the city has alWay done in other parts of the town got the go by down that way, but no sane man would argue that this relieves the city of its obligation to the peo- ple. Because there never was wall at some points, no matter how badly it was needed, and if some put one up that stood for a time and others constructed suitable ones at their own expense, it does not follow that the city can get out of doing what re- mains unfinished and repairing what has been done imperfectly and is now worse than no wall at all. Suppos- ing the present board should not have built walls on Highland avenue or on Camp street, would that mean that their successors would not be obliged to do that work? This is the position taken by a majority of the commissioners. If that be true all the boards have to do in order to evade responsibility for such things is to let them hang fire for number of years and then tell the property owners to do the work at their own expense. But lots of instances could be cited to show that this is not law. Take for example the retaining wall built at the corner of Bridge and Dublin streets in front of the Byrnes prop erty. Public mer took the ground that it was up to the owner to at tend to it, but others thought diff ferently and 1t remained in dilapi- dated condition for eighteen or twenty years, when it was finally decided that the city was responsi- ble and with great reluctance what was always done without the slight est hesitancy in other streets was undertaken and completed there. In like manner for many years the city fathers when they laid out a street in the old fourth ward, they worked 1t to a width of twenty-eight feet and compelled the abutting property owners to grade strip six feet wide at their own expense for sidewalks. This remained so until South street was being worked and an effort was made to force the property owners to lay sidewalks. They were told to refuse to comply V ith the order until the street was graded to its full width. The next move was to bring them into court, but when the judge asked MT Chatfield, who was then superintendent of streets, if the place where the walks were to be laid had bee3 worked to grade by him, and replied in the negative, the cases were dismissed and the next day Mir Chatfield had a force of men down there delving into the em- bankments on either side of the twenty-eight feet cut that had been open for years. Since that time there has not been any trouble over things of that sort, but now it crops up over a retaining wall. We'll then, if there is 20 obligation upon the city government to do that class of work on Baldwin street, what method of reasoning does the commissioners employ to show that they are bound to build such walls on Highland avenue, on Camp street. on Colley street, on Mill street on East Main street in Simons- vile in Mill Plain and various other places where such work has been done or is ordered by the aldermen and will be taken up as soon as money is available? If the city can shirk the responsibility by putting these things on the waiting list. why not adopt that plan in other places? If the commissioners would say that the work Is costly and that there are other things more urgent and that thi: can wait longer. there would be some sense in their talk. but when they say that if the wall is not on private property it is none of their affair while engaged in building walls all over town abutting on highways. mol on them. mind you. one wonders whether they are joking or in earn. est.
 One of the commissioners declares that he consulted an attorney on that question and that he assured hin that the city Is not in any way Te. sTonsiHle for the wall. It is safe tC state that the commissioner misstated u. .. a.. -