Perth Amboy evening news., 1912-08-21
THE CITY MUST CONTROL ITS STREET ENDS.
Perth Amboy must control its street ends.

legal complications to grant the riparian rights to the city
first and then lease them to the ferry company, it is proposed
that the ferry company be given the riparian rights for TWEEN
ty-fve years without the city entering into the matter at all.
While this might avoid legal complications as far as the
ferry company is concerned, the question that interests the
taxpayers of Perth Amboy is, HOW MANY LEGAL COM
PLICATIoNs WILL IT INVOLVE THE CITY IN MAIN
TANNING ITS RIGHTS TO ITS STREET ENDS?
If any party is to be forced into court to determine wheth-
or or not it has q right to use the street terminals that party
should be the CORPORATION APPLYING FOR THE PRIV
ILEGE and not the city itself.
Without a doubt the plainest way to keep the city from
being involved in legal complications over the street ends Is
to have the riparian rights granted to the city absolutely. Once
the city controls these rights 1t is time enough to consider the
question as to the best means of leasing it for the public
benefit.
Judging from the argument put up before the riparian
commissioners at the hearing at Trenton yesterday the sole OBJ
iect was to take care of the interests of the ferry company. AS
it was thought it would complicate matters to sell the land
first to the city and then have it leased to the ferry company,
it was deemed best by George s. Silzer, the ferry company's
counsel, to have the lease made direct by the board to the
ferry company. It seems that Joseph d. Stricken, special
counsel for the city in this case, agreed with Mr.. Silzer.
No doubt it would be much more convenient for the ferry
company to get riparian rights direct and would make its title
clear. as far as rights were concerned. But we are more inter-
ested in what is convenient for THE CITY. This is what MI.
Stricken was employed by the city to look after. He should
view the matter from the city's standpoint, not from the ferry
company's standpoint. Mr.. Strickeris duty is first to look
after the interests of the taxpayers Of Perth Amboy. We do
not believe the interests of the taxpayers are best looked after
in ignoring the city in making the riparian grants and giving
them to the company direct.
-. 1t is argued by MI. Silzer that there is nothing in the
harbor commission act that gives the city permission to lease
land, although it is given permission to lease nearly everything
else that it may own on the waterfront. Ii such an omission
makes the law defective in this case, and as the ferry company
has practically abandoned it's idea of establishing a ferry this
year why is it not possible to wait until the legislature con-
venes in January and then have amendments to the law intro
duced whereby the city will have it's interests safeguarded.
Whatever step is taken it is absolutely necessary that the
city shall control its street ends.
twenty-five years is a long time to turn over such i'm
portant terminal as Buckingham avenue to a private corpora
ton without the city having any hold on the riparian rights.
We do not believe the people of Perth Amboy favor such a
proposition. It Is by parting with our waterfront, lit
tie at a time in this manner that gradually forces the city
inland and eventually shuts us off from our excellent harbor
entirely.
This must not be. Other cities are spending millions Of
dollars in developing their waterfront, and Perth Amboy can
not afford to be so lax as to not only not develop its waterfront
for its own use, but allow private corporations to come in and
take away what little we have.
Let the city buy the riparian rights at once for all the
streets. Then, if the law is defective whereby the property
cannot be leased for a limited number Of years to a corpora
ton, it is time enough to have an amendment introduced into
the legislature to remedy the defect.
UNDER NO CONSIDERATION SHOULD ANY PR
VATE CORPORATION GAIN M FURTHER FOOTHOLD
ON OUR WATERFRONT TIA HAS ALREADY BEEN
ATTAINED.