The Bridgeport evening farmer. [volume] (Bridgeport, Conn.) 1866-1917, 1909-05-06
PRIVATE MAINTENANCE
OF PUBLIC WALKS
To the Editor of the Farmer:

To the Editor or the FARMER:
Sir:-While the subject of sidewalks
and their condition is occupying the
minds of the majority of the. citizen
taxpayers of the city of Bridgeport, 1t
might be proper to fmpart some
thoughts relative to the extent TO
which this sidewalk issue may, or
should affect the property owner gen
orally and how much the public in
general. should be held responsible in
the matter of use and want
To the average person, unacquainted
with the laws which govern city and
by which a city is maintained, this one
of all others, in which the interests OF
the homebuilder is deeply seated, is
more than complex and deserves to be
treated as the most important in the
regulation of the taxpayers rights.
If the streets and sidewalks, which
are acknowledged by all as the pub
lies highway, and open to all xmas OF
traffic unless restricted by special act,
are the city's special care and taken
care of by money appropriated by
body of trustworthy citizens appoint
ed for that purpose, and do not belong
in any sense to the property owner adj
jacent to that portion of street upon
which his or her property Adults, and
no means that he may employ TO pre-
vent the use of said thoroughfare
fronting his property are of any avail
without the city's aid to limit the hb-
erty of the public thereat.
Does it not appear that the owner
ship of that portion of the thorough
fare is clearly and decidedly represent
ed by the city?
Still this strip of land which all en-
joy as a common path; upon Whlch
alien and citizen alike may walk with
perfect right, was by the homebu1lder
purchased as part of his home lot,
does not in reality belong to him Or
his, although saddled with the expens Sc
attendant thereon for the benefit of
the public at large.
the citizen taXDaVer prO
vide a portion of his private property
for the use of the general public and
meet the cost of maintaining 1T in a.
condition suitable to the decision OF
the city?
There seems only one way to settle
this much abused right and bring
about a general and satisfactory cola-
dition. of this, so far, gross inconsis t.
ency.
Let the city accept the street, as a
street, recognising that to mean tue
whole thoroughfare consisting of side
| walk and carriage way, and let it ~e
the special guardian of streets and
| sidewalks and not nOminally so. aid
! let the citizen tax be levied with this in
view, and the property owners tax IN
| proportion to the amount of land bis
holdings represent.
| The ownership of a sidewalk means
| that there are no rights that the gem
eral public does not possess and enjoy,
| and for which they do not assume a1sy
| responsibility nor bear any of the ef-
| penSe.
The uniformity of treatment in the
matter of city government would be
| satisfactory and systematic and the
| unSightliness of , some of our streets
| and sidewalks would become a thing
of the past and a greater degree Of
| respect would be paid to the city S
property by many whose individuality
| only appears under constraint.
| The ownership of the sidewalk at the
time of the purchase by the homo
| builder permits him to set out trees
for the qualification of his love of such
| adornments. But the ownership of TIE
Ltrees becomes a question when once
they are rooted and require pruning er
attention, and the city comes along IN
her strength and magnitude under TIE
guidance of some appointed authority
on arbor culture and cuts down CT
| otherwise nlutilates according to- his
| extent of intelligence or ignorance
that which by some undefnable Law
| becomes the city's property. This Of
fence to the finer conceptions of the
| taxpayer is, to say the least, a viola
ton of all decency, and only exists
when ignorance >abounds-
/ With this fact and fully vouch-
ed for by the experience of many cam
not something be done to regulate the
Ownership of property SO that no ques-