Abilene weekly reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1888-1935, 1907-01-03

cd BY the city, is untenaple.
Second; There being no possible
way that the mayor could know tn
exact amount Of money, or even tn
approximate amount, that would b
required by the city to pay for thu
suitable grounds" for public park
until after the appraisement is made
IT would be impossible for HIM Z
state in his election proclamation
the exact amount Of money thai
would be required for such purpose
All the mayor could do in issuing hi
proclamation was to describe thu
"suitable grounds" to be obtained BY
the city for a public park, and state
an amount above which the city
could not issue bonds to pay therefor
And this case, in my Judgment, the
mayors election proclamation COM
plies with the letter and spirit Of the
statute.
Third: There is nothing in the
statute provides for condemnation
proceedings when a city desires to
take private property for public USE
which, by its terms, requires the
appraisers to appraise the land and
the improvements thereon as whole.
And there is nothing, SO far as | am
able to ascertain, that iorbids the
appraisers from making an appraise-
m ent Of the land without regard to
improvements thereon, and then
appraising the improvements separ-
ately. But whether there 10 or not,
there is nothing in the evidence OF
admission in this case to show that
had each lot been appraised with the
improvements thereon, that the ap-
praisement thereof would not have
been exactly equal to the appraise-
ment of the land without regard to
the improvements, and the separate
appraisement Of the improvements
thereon.
Fourth: 1t does not affirmatively
appear that the proceeds which shall
be derived from the sale Of the bonds
will not be sufficient to pay the ap-
praised value OF the lots sought to be
taken for park. In fact, II the ap-
praisers were not wholly mistaken in
their estimate Of the value Of the i'm
provements upon the lots, the pro-
ceeds Of the sale Of the bonds should
exceed the amount that would be re-
quired to pay for the lots, less the
improvement thereon.
Fifth: The purpose Of procuring
the lots in controversy is to provide
the inhabitants OF the city with o
public park. From necessity the i'm
provements upon said lots would be
removed therefrom, and II the owners
Of the improvements fail to take the
improvements at their appraised value
they upon being removed from
the lots, would become personal
property; and this personal property
having been derived from the pur-
chase OF the lots for a public park,
the city council would most certainly
be authorized to use the proceeds OF
the sale of such improvements for the
purchase and maintenance oil such
public park.
Sixth: Whether the proceeds from
the sale Of the bonds will be INSULT
cient to pay for the land sought to be
taken, does not appear from the teSti-
mony. 1t is true that the face OF the
bonds is not equal to the appraised
value Of the property by $2Sl.OO; but
1t is the natural inference to draw
from the testimony and agreed state.
ment Of facts, that the proceeds from
the sale Of the improvements upon
these lots will be far in excess Of 1921,
and that the net cost to the city for
the lots in controversy will be con-
siderably less than the face Of $4,000
Of bonds. There is no presumption
that the city will buy any portion Of
the lots included in the proposed
public park unless they have sufficient
means available to purchase all Of
them. And there is no presumption
that the city will resort to any illegal
Of raising the money with
which to pay for the lots in contrO-
Eersy.
Let the Squirrels Alone.