New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1910-02-07
BLOW AT SUBWAYS
IN ASSESSMENT PLAN.
Bills Night Require City to
Pay Full Cost.
fBy Telegraph to The Tribune.


Albany, Feb eff two bills now pending
before the Legislature become Law IL VIII
be almost impossible. in the opinion OF
some persons here, for New York City TO
begin the building of new subways OH the
assessment plan. These measures both OF
which originated in Brooklyn, where the
demand for new subways on the assess
,nent plan is keen. provide for the refund
by the city of assessments on property
benefited by other public improvements
The argument is raised against these
measures that Ii they were passed a pyece-
dent would be created under which the
city might be required at any time to pay
the full cost OF public improvements made
on the assessment plan. Naturally, under
those conditions the city authorities would
be unwilling 10 take Up subway building
on the assessment plan. though permitted
to do SO now by law.
Striking proof of the position of large
part of the Brooklynites who desire new
subways is afforded by an extract from
q memorandum of ex-Mayor Mcclellan in
vetoing last year q bill fathered by the
so-called Cassidy committee 10 prevent the
issuance OF assessment bonds. He said
that IF he should approve that bin II
would take away one Of the methods sug-
sested 70 provide for the financing of bet
ter railroad facilities. He continued:
Il had before me at this public hearing
on the rapid transit amendments repre-
sentative of several civic bodies In the
Borough of Brooklyn. who pleaded with
me to retain the assessment bond theory
in the rapid transit amendments as the
citizens of that part Of Brooklyn which he
represented urged the building of a road
for their convenience for which they were
more than willing TO pay by local assess
r ent bonds
The bills under consideration are not IN
important in themselves aside from the
possibility Of their holding up subway build
ing. One would require the city to refund
about million dollars. This was intro
duced by Senator Cronin and Assembly
man O'Connor 1t provides that one-third
OF the expense of constructing a trunk
sewer draining practically all the cid town
or Fiatbush and parts OF cid Brooklyn.
Flatfands and New Utrecht shall be borne
by the city, and directs the refund OF one
third OF the assessments already paid. This
sewer was built III 1886. It cost the city
more than S3,0oo,90n of which sum nearly
s500,o00 was assessed to the city because OF
Prospect Park and the parade ground.
There had been paid in assessments up 10
March 10 OF last year approximately ST.
a00,e00.
The second bill was introduced by Sen
ator Alt and Assemblyman Lachman and
provides that the total expense Of opening
Railroad avenue. from Fairfield avenue to
Atlantic avenue, in Brooklyn, shall be
borne by the city and assessments on
property benefited be refunded The total
assessments on this improvement were
some s72,e10. most OF them IN amounts un-
der $50
Through Joseph o. Hammitt, secretary,
the Citizens Union has filed with the As
sembly Cities Committee protest against
the bills. The argument Is made that this
is a matter purely for New York City TO
decide, and any Interference by the Legis-
lature would be unWaTranted and would
deprive local officials Of proper control OF
a local situation
The enactment OF either one Of these
bills" says Mr.. Hamnlitt. would be par
tcularly disastrous in It's effect on the
treatment OF public improvement matters
in New York City. The public improve
ments referred to III these bills we're au-
thorized by the BOARD OF Estimate and
Apportionment with the understanding
that q portion OF the expense should be
paid b. the property owners within areas
particularly benefited. When demanding
the improvements the property owners
within the area benefited have indicated
IN public hearings and otherwise their will
ingness to pay assessments; and because
cf this attitude OF the property owners the
Board Of Estimate and Apportionu1ent has
been enabled TO show greater lberaiity in
authorizing such improvements than the
limits Of the city's funds would otherwise
permit.
IF a single bill of this sort should be
enacted into law 1t would be notice 10 the
2ity of New York that it could never pro-
vide for public improvements On the as
sessment plan without mourning the dan
ger later OF being compelled to pay out OF
the general treasury the entire cost OF the
Improvement. Manifestiy. ii will then be
unsafe for the city TO make any improve
ments ON the assessment plan. This Is all
the more important because under a
statute passed last year the city OF New
York is new enabled to provide for rapid
transit subways TO be paid for by assess
ments upon the property benefited
FAKE RIaCK NpATS ApP uppr