The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1910-12-06

In no mincing language Mayor E.. T. Buckingham read a message to the Common Council, last night, stat ing his reason for vetoing the order of the council to widen Congress St. on the north side at cost of $55,- 900. and also for vetoing the order to eliminate the stone pier on the north side of Congress street at a cost of s15,000. Both vetoes accom- panied the message.
 On motion of Alderman Hugh J. Lavery acton on both vetoes was postponed until the next session of dermen may have opportunity to be- come more thoroughly acquainted with the conditions surrounding the widening project.
 A resolution by Alderman Clampett to rescind the action of the council in confirming the report of the Board of Appraisal of Benefits and Damages on the widen ng of Congress street, adopted by the council Oct. IT, 1910, was laid on the table.
 The message of the mayor includ- ed a recommendation that the Board of Aldermen consider the advisabil- ity of building a new bridge across
 
 ipgton avenue.
 By resolution offered by Alderman Lavery that portion of the mayors s message dealing with the necess ty of constructing a new bridge was refer red to the committee on streets and sidewalks with instructions to report back at the next meeting of the council.
 Gentlemen:-
 At this the opening meeting of this common council, feel it my duty to direct the attention of your body to two matters of considerable import ance to the city, one of them being the question of the widening of Con- gress street from Main street easterly to the Congress street bridge. In a communication from me to the coun- ell on October IT. 1910, vetoing cer- tain action of the common council. I set forth several reasons why do not think it a wise policy for the city to expend $55,336 for widening this sec- ton of Congress street 12 feet. These figures. which have given as the probable cost of the project, are those made by the board of appraisal of benefits and damages and already sub- mitted to your body. Since my com munication to the common council, there have been three appeals from the assessment of benefits and dam ages on the widening of this street. One of them was by Berger an dCon- nors, who were assessed benefits to the amount of $4,700, on the assump- ton that the widening would place their property on the corner of Main and Congress streets. and this involves the councils attention in the said veto message.
 Appraisal Board Erred.
 Tn my communication to the com mon council on October IT, I attempt ed to point out that the award of $20,000 damages to Mrs. Abby Mo- Carthy, who owns the property at the northeast corner of Congress and Main streets, was based on an entirely board of appraisal of benefits and damages. They stated in their report to the council that they awarded her this sum of money, because of the taking by the city of her entire prop erty. They represented that the city would then be able to deed a small remaining triangular portion of this Ing, to the abutting owners on the "orth. namely the said Berger and Connors and others. but in this idea the board of appraisal was in error. The city would not obtain title to any part of the property. It would only acquire right of way over 1t and could not deed any portion of it. It consequently follows that Berger and Connors' property, after the widening, would not be on the corner, but that small triangular section would lie between it and Congress street and this triangle would still be the prop erty of Mrs. Mccarthy. It must the board, in awarding such an amount of damages to Mrs. Mccarthy, and such an amount of benefits to Berger and Connors, was wrong, and that this assessment ought not to be allowed to stand as it now is. No matter what difference of opinion there may be as to the policy of wid- ening on the north side. there ought not to be any hesitation on your part in resembling your action confir-..ng the report of the board of appraisal and in re-committing the matter to said board. The mistake pointed out ought at least to be remedied, other wise it means resulting loss of sev- eral thousand dollars to the city.
 Expenditure Unwarranted.
 Furthermore, I stated in said conn., the existing conditions warranted such an expenditure for the widening of said street. l stated what Is a fact, namely that not more than 10 per cent. of the traffic over the Congy ess street bridge comes over this section of Congress street. The traffic turns either south on Water street or Middle street or north on Housatonic avenue. The more I study the situation the more difficulty I find in discovering where the greatly increased traffic is coming from in future years to justify this large outlay. Without any ma terial cost to the city, the roadway can be widened by setting back the curb on each side two feet and by making the sidewalks seven feet in width. There will then be left a roadway 36 feet wide. This roadway 36 feet in width will be wider than the roadway of any street running east and west from Broad stree to Water street south of Congress street, with the exception of Golden Hill street. I am convinced that it is unwise to proceed with the very un- satisfactory method of widening con- templated in the plan adopted and to Incur the very large and. to my mind, unnecessary expense. I feel that you would be rendering valuable public service in preventing 1t from being carried out. I would therefore recom- mend that appropriate action be taken by you looking to the discontinuance of that portion of Congress street. from Main street easterly to the bridge, included in the addition there to made by the widening as adopted.
 also desire at this time to call your attention to the condition of the East Washington avenue bridge. The