New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1908-12-06
JUST THE BEGINNING
WORST STILL TO COME.
Revelations of Enormous Cost OF
Condemnation Proceedings.

There was only an intimation at Thursdays near
ing of the legislative committee investigating the
financial condition of the city of the enormous
amount of money spent every year In condeIlnatloh
proceedings. The fact that slipped out then, that
over $4,000 paid in fees in a condemnation pro
ceeding in The Bronx where only 81 was a"aroeu
for the property, IS only instance OF many that
will be brought out when the inquiry OF the COM
nittee is resumed Tuesday.
The committee has already learned enough ABOUT
the cost of this method of acquiring property by
the city to it likely that it will strongly FAVOR
the establishment of condemnation courts, the sole
business of which shall be the assessment or dam
ages where property acquired for municipal pur-
poses. As the Charter Revision Commission VIII
probably report in favor Of similar REFORM there
seems to be hope that the abuses or the oAo
system may be wiped out within the next year
or so.
Appointments on land condemnation commissions
have long been considered the choicest piun1s
within the gift of the courts. They pay sU a ses-
sion long or short and it has not been considered
at all improper when the number of sessions was
increased TO the last degree There are scores OF
where the costs of the proceedings have oeeh
at least half the amount awarded for the properly
and such awards not at all small as Is wen
known. III a few cases, however, the cosIS
have exceeded the awards, in the Jerome avenue
matter. The cases drag so long that the inter
est charges on the award generally form a consld-
cradle item of the total expense to the city.
Among the cases that have been brought to the
attention of the committee the following:
Opening of 46th street, from Twelfth, to Seven
teenth avenues. Brooklyn; award. $161i cost OF
H I2SeTEiS " F Pa Baer and John j. Brennan.
ssh9o site Nary a:f S s2 90 eomgmsso
ers Charles Merwin Turner. Franklin Taylor and
Exsndng F0x from d2ngwo2d So to I 16es
s2,I22 80: commissioners. Henry Lips, jr, George
J. Clarke and Gerald J.. Barry. ,oo.,- a.-.o. 7r,,,
Bronx; award ST. costs, s1.IIHs; commissioners.
Francis V. S. Oliver Martin J. v1oore and Frederic
L. Ha
Extending Beck street from Lo2gwe9d 1t to Inter Inter
si57e 50; Commissioners. Edward D. Bowling, John
Extending Hatfield street from 18TH. street, 100
feet easterIy in Rtchmo46; award SAL 571 Costs.
lam T. Croak and Daniel Campbell
The above costs are entirely exclusive of the in
terest charges. A good example of what interest
amounts to in comparison with the entire trans
action shown in proceedings for the extension OF
Flatbush avenue (Brooklyn) the Manhattan
Bridge, begun January 1905, ended March 49, 1903;
award, $685.. 36S AZ; interest on award. s5L076 81
1t took from December IS. 1904, to December f.
1907 to acquire the title of Edgecombe Road, from
155th street to 10Th street Eight years were con-
sumed in the Proceedings for the opening Of Tenth
avenue, from 3Sth street to SD street, and from
Fort Hamilton avenue to Seventh avenue. Brooklyn.
The award was $ll4916 55 and the interest charges
amounted to s45964 p, Only two years were con-
sunled in opening East 149th street, from Southern
Boulevard TO Austin Place, but the condemnation
costs amounted to s23 232 49, whereas the award
ceeding for getting title to Centre avenue from
East 173d street to fremont avenue, The Bronx,
which took nearly six years. The award in this
case was S91, 3S7 Is. whereas the costs only
SO 407 IS The interest charges, however, were
s1.94.
The total amount paid out by the city in awards,
interest charges and costs for condemnation pro-
ceedings in the year ended December has been
81, 900. In regard 10 triangular piece of prop
erty used a part Of Third avenue. East 159th
condemnation
awarded s3S,744 and later consented to a reduction
TO s12,167 Surrogate-elect John P. Cohalan who
was the chairman of the commission, said yester-
day:
We guided in award by the majority
opinions Of the experts after q careful considera-
ton of the case As for the expert of the city
who testified that the property was not worth
more than 5000 proof was produced to show that
he had appraised the property 81 900 some
five years ago and he testified that property in
that section had increased in value three four
times in that period. Then again, we had to take
into consideration the fact that the city had used
the property for eighteen years without any com
pensatiOn, during all of which time the owner
paying taxes q lot