The Birmingham age-herald., 1912-01-05
MORE VIEWS ON THE
 ENSLEY PARK STE
Pitts Says Citizens Would Prefer Small Parks
 at This Time
To the Editor of The Age-Herald.

To the Editor of The Age-Herald.
 Since the negotiation for the pur- chase of park at Ensley by the city commission Is causing considerable newspaper comment. and discussion of the matter Is being indulged in on all sides, it is not amiss to view the mat ter from the standpoint of the citizen and tax payer.
 Only two propositions were made to city. one of 43 and a fraction acres at $92,240, and one of 39 and fraction acres at $5S,657, both tracts adjoining.
 A difference of only four acres in the two tracts, but a difference in the price of nearly s34,0oo.
 The first proposition above men toned was accepted by the city, Judge Lane dissenting.
 1t now develops that the owners OK pected to receive $2100 an acre for sur face rights only, and naturally great surprise was expressed by all members of the commission. when the city at torney advised the board of the situa- ton.
 The second proposition of 39 acres at $14S5 an acre, which was declined is a fee simple proposition, the mineral rights not reserved.
 The coal developments in this vicinity have demonstrated yield of 5000 tons per acre as minimum, possibly in excess of that. At the small royalty of cents per ton, the value of the mineral interest per acre is $1SO. Therefore, the first named tract of land was being priced to the city at $22SO per acre as against $14S5 for the latter.
 It is generally admitted that both properties are located in the only available section for park, and no other location has been considered.
 In view of the fact that the two properties were substantially alike, and equally desirable, the question of in terest to the tax payer is. why would the city, under present conditions, pay such an enormous difference In price for the land?
 The individual tax payers will pay for their parks eventually. l am a citizen and tax payer of Ensley, and am in terested in the proposition which was declined.
 However that interest is so small, that it Is a matter of indifference to me whether realize on 1t now, or some years later.
 It has been stated today in an article by MT. Crawford Perkins that with the exception of about 1860 acres across Village creek, toward Pratt City, "the mineral and mining rights clause ex- ists In every deed of conveyance that has been executed in and around Ems ley for the past 25 years.'
 This statement is too broad, and most certainly does not apply to the 39 acres in question. which was offered the city in fee simple. which immediately ad joins the site the commission selected.
 My opinion is that 1t would be very unwise for the city to buy large park at Ensley at present and many others concur in this view
 I attended the mass meeting at Ems ley, called to receive park propositions, and decide on what they wanted. Un- fortunately, the general public dis played no interest in the meetings and the attendance was only 40 people. Even though 1t was not a representative meeting, they voted to ask for an IS acre park, and no more. and were sat isfied to have only that much land. However, that IS acres, which was priced at s47,000. was .afterward con- solidated with another piece, accepted by the city. and the price moved up to 2.240-surface rights only.
 Large numbers of tax payers all over the city disapprove of large purchases of land by the city at this time.
 In view of the general discussion all over the city, 1t seems wise for the com- mission to buy a small park for Ems ley at this time, and to have the title in fee. II. M PITTS.
 Birmingham. January 1. 1912.