The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1913-09-30
TAXPAYERS ASK COMPENSATION
 FOR FLAGCINC
Director COurtade Refuses To Return Tagging Taken
 From Kiefer Street.
SOUTH END RESIDENTS
 PLAN UNITED ACTION
Want To See That They Get Ample Compensation For Property City Employees
 Have Removed.

Residents of Kiefer street, especial ly John E. Porter are incensed at what they consider the high handed actions of Director of Public Works Jacob A. Courtade in removing from in front of their property the curbing to make way for the setting of new curb which is being done as city work. The property owners do not object so much to having the city do the work as they do to having curb stones for which they paid good money carted away by Si1liman & Godfrey, the contractors who are doing the work.
 MT. Porter's property fronts about 100 feet on Kiefer street. The other day he aWoke to the fact that the workmen of the contractors had car ried off the curbing in front of his land. MT. Porter made inquiries and found that that curb had been carted away at MT. Courtade's direction. MT. Porter then called the director of pub lie works on the telephone and de- manded that he return the 100 feet of curb which was taken.
 No won't bring it back" Direc- tor Courtade is reported to have re- piled over the telephone.
 Why did you take it away?'' queried MT. Porter" That curb is my property and you have no right to it"
 ''It was obstruction in the street and would interfere with the paving work there. That is why it was taken Mir Courtade replied.
 Kiefer street, with Singer avenue, and Atlantic street is to be paved with granite blocks and the work is already under way and about half completed. The property. owners there were noti- fled to relay curb and gutter and make tar nd nd nectlons with their property before September l. Every property owner on the street except DeVer H. Warner signed a protest against laying perma- nent pavement in these streets.
 Property owners in this section claim MT. Warner pays proportion ately less taxes on his property than any other taxpayers in that section. Most of the property owners there concluded to let the city do the work of resetting the curb and gutters and have the expense assessed against their property. The old curb was 1 6 inches. The new curb is 20 inches.
 No bids were asked for the work but Si1linan & Godfrey was given the contract by the Director of Public Works. The new curb will cost. from 60 to 75 cents per front running foot. The. allowance for the old curb taken away will be about 10 cents per run ming foot but most of the curb can be cleaned up and used over again and will bring the contractor who sets 1t from 50 to 60 cents per running foot.
 MT. Porter and other property own CTS whose curb was taken have made up their minds to ask that the city give them some proper compensation for the curb that was taken. The curb has been removed from all the property on the street except from in front of the saloon of Kaistana And ruskewecs at Main and Kiefer streets.
 MT. Courtade when asked about the matter this morning admitted that he had a conversation with MT. Porter about this curb. Director Courtade said:
 Yes. It is true we have removed the curb and I have refused to return it. All the property owners in that section were given ample notice to reset the curb and gutters in front of their property. When the notice expired and nothing had been done We had to take away the curb be- cause it was an obstruction. It was in the way when we went to pile the granite blocks on the sidewalks pre- paratory to laying them in the street The property owners will not lose for each is given a rebate on the new work for the old curb.''
 Although the director claims the old curb would become an obstruction if left in the street, the small flag stones which form the gutters have been left lying about.
 ''I suppose the contractors consider ed them valueless and not worth cart ing off, said one Kiefer street prop erty owner today.
 The complaining property owners are to form an association and employ Ie- gal counsel to determine their rights. Some property owners claim that Kief- CT street and Singer avenue have nev- CT been accepted by the city of Bridge port and that they are private thor oughfares and therefor the city can not order permanent pavement laid in them or assess taxpayers for the cost of the paving work.