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

figures, indicating that the owners
were willing to make concessions and
were not disposed to stand out
against the needs of the city.
Matters appear to have drifted
along until October 10, and it was
voted at the Council meeting on that
date again on motion of Alderman
Taft, that the representatives Of the
property owners be notified that the
city proposes to take The lands re-
ferred to and that the Council will
them upon the question of taking the
lands and the damages sustained by
reason of such taking.
The City Council held another
meeting on October 81, and it does
not appear that the revised figures
made by the property owners had
been considered by the Council but the
Council then voted to take up that
matter and consider it. 1t was then
voted on motion of Alderman Fitz-
gerald that the amounts to be paid
should be-
Lane Mfg. Company ..... $500
p. p. Pitlin estate ....... $3.50
BlXby land ................. 9,OOo
To give a fair idea of just what is
he difference between the price paid
and offered this comparison should be
made:
Councils
Paid, Offer. Dir.
Lane Mfg Co. $4,000 $6,3S5 $2,615
p. p. Pitkin est. $3.50 1866 $50
BiXby land ..... 5000 $3.50 $50
This makes a total difference be-
tween the price the Council finally
agreed to pay and the price it had Of
fered in September of $4,250, that is
$23,750 instead of $4,000. The prop
erty owners have agreed to accept
$3.50 less than the price they placed
on the property when the whole mat
ter was in the air, before the city had
instructed the council to buy the
property. They have made this con-
cession when they were not anxious
to sell, when they had not been asked
to sell, when the Council or the May
or opened proceedings by sending an
officer to serve papers informing
them that the land was to be taken,
and when, IN marking on the prop
erty, only one alderman in one case
was willing to make q price as large
as the value placed on the property by
the owners.
Tho City Council has bought this
property for the city and understands
that it has bought it. The deeds We're
delivered to Mayor Dawley in January
and have been by him turned over 20
the board of school commissioners.
The Mayor and the chairman of the
finance committee, after the price had
been agreed upon, asked for an ex-
stated that payment could not be
made until after January /. The
property owners agreed to such de-
lay and waived the payment OF inte,'-
est during the time for which pay
ment was deferred.
1t was voted by the Council on
November 10, on motion of Alder
man Taft, that the matter of grading
the school property on Loomis sire 4.
and of letting teams to the school
committee be left to the street COM
mittee with power to act. The Coun-
Gil would not have taken this action
with reference to improvements on
the property unless it supposed that
it had bought the property. 1t is fur
Their evident that the Council consd-
ers that it has bound the city by its
actions, for it voted on December 8,
on motion of Alderman Taft, to au-
thCrize the finance committee to adj
vertise for bids for $4,000 of high
school bonds. The advertisement was
made and bids We're submitted and
accepted and payment for the land
has been delayed only because it was
suggested by the attorney for the
successful bidder that Il might be
moro desirable to have the entire is
sue of bonds legalized by ballot 1T
the city meeting owing to the fact
that a question might be raised as to
the right Of the city to bond for more
than about $4,000.
The question OF the payment for the
land on LOOMS street has been set
tied by the action of the Council. The
vote taken at the annual city meeting
really relates only to an additional
issue of bonds to the full amount that
it is expected will be required. The
city has bought and shows by the
formal action of its officials that it
stands ready to pay for the land it
has voted to take for a High School
site. and no one should allow himself
to be confused by any mixing up of
two different propositions.
TAXPAYER.