The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-01-17

twelve feet. These figures, which
 have given as the probable cost of
 Board of Appraisal of Benefits and Damages and already submitted to your body. Since my communiea-
 tion to the Common Council there assessment of benefits and damages
 on the widening of this street. One of them was by Berger & Connors, who were assessed benefits to the amount of s4,700.00 on the assump- tion that the widening would place their property on the corner of Main and Congress street, and this involves one of the matters to which I called the councils attention in the said veto message.
 mon Council on 17th Of October'I at tempted to point out that the award of $20,000 damages to Mrs. Abbie Mccarthy, who owns the property at the northeast corner of Congress and Main street. was based on an entirely
 board of Appraisal of Benefits and Damages. They stated in their re- port to the Council that they award ed her this sum of money, because of the taking by the city of her entire property. They represented that the city would then be able to deed small remaining triangular portion of this property. not needed for the wid- ening, to the abutting owners on the north, namely the said Berger & 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 a right of way over it and could not deed any portion of 1t. It consequently follows that Berger & Connors' property, after the widening would not be on the corner, but that a small triangular section would lie between it and Congress street and this triangle would still be the prop erty of Mrs. Mccarthy. It must necessarily follow that the theory of the board in awarding such an amount of damages to Mrs. Mccarthy and such an amount of benefits to Berger & Connors was wrong, and that this assessment ought not to be allowed to stand as it now is. No mat ter what difference of opinion there may be as to the policy of widening on the north side, there ought not to be any hesitation on your. part in re- scinding your action confirming the report of the Board of Appraisal of Benefits and Damages and in recom- mitting the matter to said board. The
 mistake pointed out ought at least to be remedied otherwise it means a re- sulting loss of several thousand dol lars to the city.
 Furthermore. I stated in said com munication that did not believe that the existing conditions warranted
 such an expenditure for the widening of said street. I stated what is fact, namely, that not more than ten per cent of the traffic over the Com gress, street bridge comes over this section of Congress street. The traf- ffc turns either south on Water or
 Middle street or north on Housatonic avenue. The more I study the situ- ation the more difficulty I find in dis covering where the greatly increased traffic is coming from in future years to justify this large outlay. Without any material 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 of 36 feet wide. This roadway 36 feet in width will be wid- running east and west from Broad
 street to Water street south of Con- greSS street, with the exception of Golden Hill street.
 I am convinced that it is unwise to proceed with the very unsa tisfactory method of widening contemplated in the plan adopted, and to incur the very large and, to my mind, unnec- essary expense. I feel that you
 would be rendering valuable public service in preventing 1t from being carried out. l would therefore rec
 ommend that appropriate action be taken by you looking to the discon-
 tinuance of that portion of Congress street. from Main street easterly to
 thee bridge, included in the addition thereto by the widening as adopted.
 I also desire at this time to call your attention to the condition of the
 East Washington avenue bridge.
 The plans of the United States gov
 ernment call for the dredging of the
 channel to depth of eighteen feet, mean low water, as far as Blacks dock am advised by MT. H. G. Scofield, the engineer who had charge of the construction of the bridge in 1893, that this dredging cannot be
 ments of the bridge. It appears now as though a new bridge would have
 to be constructed at this point. I would therefore respectfully recom-
 mend that this matter also be taken under early consideration by your body
 Respectfully submitted this 9th day of December, 1910.
 EDWARD T. BUCKINGHAM. Mayor.
 Upon motion of Alderman Lavery the communication was accepted and ordered placed. on file.
 The Mayor also read the following communication:
 To the Honorable Common Council of the City of Bridgeport:
 Gentlemen:-
 I herewith return without my ap-
 proval the resolution referring to the removal of Instructions on Congress street, as adopted by the Common Council November 2, 1910. For the reasons already stated in my message to you this evening, I am opposed to the widening of Congress street on the north side Further considera- tion should be given to this question before a resolution of this character
 should be finally adopted. At this season of the year, work on the re- moval of Instructions could not be completed nor walks nor curbs be
 laid before spring, so that no hard on this resolution.
 Furthermore I do not feel that the city of Bridgeport should be drawn into any possible legal complications in reference to the widening of Con-
 gress street, until all questions in con- nection with the same have been fin.