The Mankato free press., 1912-02-09
Special Assessments Furnish the
Basis For Protests.
MANY COME BEFORE FATHERS
Several Other Matters We're TAX.
en- Up at Weekly Meet
This Day.
From Mondays Daily.

TFoHi WonudyS Ddly. .-t- III
Objections to the proposed assess.
ments ON various properties in the
city, where improvements were madG
during last summer, were registered
with the city council this morning.
In the protests the property owners
said that the council had erred i'll
trying TO make assessments on i'm
provements that were of no benefit
to them and We're unjust. ...
S. X. Fowler was the first to pro.
test against the proposed assess
ments on his property on Pike
street. He said that the city had
to take the dirt off the street there
anyway and that the property own.
ers were not consulted. Moreover,
the dirt did not cost the city any.
thing. For these reasons he OBJ.
jected to any assessments. 7
Benjamin Taylor then objected to
the assessments OIL Willard street
for the reason that he thought that
the street car company was the only
one benefited. The work there was
not finished and almost impassabie
No protests were made against
the assessments on the Bunker Hill
improvements but James Wilson OBJ.
Jected to any assessments on his
property which adjoined the retain.
ing wall OH Fourth street and Jack.
son, while X. E. Brown objected
on the same grounds for which the
former had appeared. He said this
improvement was of. no earthly
value to him. s..'
Peter Lloyd said he would like
to get value received for any i'm.
provements near his property, but
although he said there was no dam.
age to the property he ought not to
be assessed. ..s,..
DR.. William P. Seaquist thought
that the proposed assessments on
his property were unjust. He did
not appear at the council primarily
to object to any improvement. He
had intended to pay the assessment
but had never Investigated the re-
tanning wall adjoining his property
until this morning when he found
that it had been carried into his
lot about thirty inches. He agreed
that the expense of the improve.
ments should be borne by the prop.
erty owners whose property abutted
on the improvements, but that in this
case the wall ran diagonally across
his lot. Moreover if there was no
legal warrant for charging the cost
against him, then lie objected on
those grounds also.
Engineer Says Some Mistake.
d. City Engieer H. +. Blomquist,
however, told Mr.. Seaquist that
there was evidently some mistake II
his inspection, as he had made the
survey with the surveyors instru.
ments and found no fault. DR.. Sea.
quist admitted that he had only
made an inspection with the eye,
and upon Mr.. Blomquist's assurance
that there was a mistake, admitted
that he probably had not measured
correctly.
B. C.. Parmalee said he lived on
the opposite side of the street and
hence his property was not benefited
by the wall. There were several
other reasons why he could object,
but he thought that one was enough.
No protests were made against the
assessments on the work done on
Madison avenue at the Eagle Lake
hill. The work done here was sim
ply n fill or repairs. Neither were
there any objections to the work
on the st. Peter road, gravelinS
from the top of the hill to the city
limits, as this work had not yet
been completed. -~ ~
Frank Hoerr- protested against as
sessments to be made against him
for the improvements made on the
Main street hill. He said that some
years ago the council appropriated
a few thousand dollars with which
to repair this hill but he did not
believe that this money was ever
spent there, and the work was never
finished. He also said that the prop
erty owners had never been consult
ed about the proposed improvements
and that they really were not per.
manent improvements. AS 1t was
a public street it benefited all the
public instead of one person only.
John Mullen Objected.
Tohn Mullen Obiectad tO heino as.