The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1910-03-10

The heirs of the p. p. Pitkin estate
have been among the public spirited
citizens of Montpelier. While they
preferred to hold the property which
the city had decided that it wanted,
there was no reason for believing,
from the past conduct or the general
standing OF the parties holding the
property, that they would have un-
dertaken to drive an unfair bargain
with the city They were entitled at
any rate, to be approached with cour-
tesy and to be treated with decent
consideration. 1t would have been botn
polite and courteous for the city's
representatives in this matter to ask
them if an arrangement or colnpro-
mise in the matter of price could be
effected.
Instead of that and without even
approaching the property hold
ers, papers were served on
Them in condemnation proceed
ings. This had been author
lied by the city meeting 'if neces-
sary," bat nothing had developed to
indicate that it was necessary. There
is no evidence that the City Council
considered it necessary.
Such a proceeding did not tend 10
make the owners of the property feel
especially good natured, nor was
there any such spirit manifested by
the City Council as would induce
them to make concessions in respect
70 the price. though they afterwards
did go. The owners of the property
have always been DESTROYS of reach
ing an agreement without any litiga-
ton, while the entire policy of the
council seems to have been prompted
by a determination to have the mat
ter of price determined in court in
stead OF by personal agreement and
mutual concession.
1t was voted by the City Council on
August 25, on motion Of Alderman
Taft that the City Clerk notify the
examine TIE premises and hear the
persons interested in the matter of
the consideration of any of said land
on Sept 1, 1909, at and one half
o'clock p. m."
Probably not ono in five hundred of
the voters of Montpelier knows that
such condemnation proceedings were
ordered The general understanding
had been that the City Council was
trying to arrange a deal with the
property owners. The fact is that the
property owners We're willing to do
anything in fairness, had no desire to
stand on their legal rights, and would
at any time have been willing
to submit the entire matter of price
to a board to be mutually agreed up
on, If it he'd not been possible to ar
range a price with the Council itself
But the Council, or the Mayor seems
to have believed that the only way
the city could get the land desired
was to take a club to the owners.
At a Council meeting on September
/ the land owners were present and
were heard by the Council as to the
value of their respective properties,
and the prices submitted by the prop
erty owners at that time were as fol-
lows:
Lane Mfg. Company .......$ 11 900
P. p. Pitkin estate .....I. $500
BiXby property .............10 900
After the land owners were heard
the Counmil went into executive ses-
sion and finally marked" on The value
of the land in this way:
Highest, Lowest
Lane Mfg. Coz ..$10,S0o $4,000
p. p. Pitkin estate 49,. $500 5000
BiXby land .... .... 5000 1900
After the marking Alderman Lang
moved and the Council voted that
land damages on account of the new
school building should be as follows;
Lane Mfg. Company ....... $685.
E L ithih CSta'c f,oO'
BiAby property ............. $3.50
and that the land owners be given six
months from September to remove
their buildings from the premises.
This amounted to total of $19,5C0
for the property. The owners price
was $4,000 and they did not accept
the amount offered by this vote of the
Council.
There has been a great deal of loose
talk, and talk unjustifed by the facts,
in regard to the way the aldermen
marked" on this property. 1t has
been stated and quite generally be-
lieved that two members of the board
marked $1,000 above the price asked
because they thought others would
mark low and wanted to bring the
price up where it should be. This is
not the fact. The figures of the
marking" cited above show that
only in the case of the Pitkin prop
erty was the highest mark equal to
the owners price. While in the case
| of both the Pitkin and the Lane prop
critics the lowest mark was less than
half the owners valuation There