Evening journal., 1913-05-13
OWNERS ASK
MORE DAMAGE
West Side Property Holders
Say $500 Allowance is
Not Sufficient
TROUBLE AFTER
BRIDGE IS BUILT

At the meeting of the Directors Of
the Street and Sewer Department this
morning. the matter of damages to
property owners along Ninth street.
between Grant avenue and the b. and !
O. Railroad. was taken up by the /
Board, and witnesses representing the
Railroad and the property owners,
were heard regarding the amount Of
damages sustained by reason OF The
change OF the grade Of Ninth street,
which was made necessary by the
raising Of the y. and o Railroad at
that point The railroad company
was represented by Andrew E. San
born, and the porperty owners by
George A. Elliott.
Under the Delaware law no damages
can be recovered for change of
grade for public purposes either from
the city or a railroad company. It
was agreed by the Street Department
and the railroad company that the
railroad company would pay fair
I and Just sum for the damage done
] 70 the property owners The damages
were fixed by Alfred ID. Moore. }.
jackson Peirco and Morris ID. Cros-
san for the railroad company at 5000
10 all the property owners. The prop
,erty owners claim this amount is not
sufficient The George Weldin estate
claims $1,000 damages.
The contention of the property
owners is that the change Of grade
will necessitatc the building Of a
wall to protect their properties.
which are now below grade. and they
should be awarded damages for what
the wall will cost. as we'll as the ac-
tuai damage TO the property
The railroad company contended
that the measure OF damage was the
difference between what the property
was worth before the change was
made and what Il is worth today, and
as there is no means of knowing
whether the wall would be built or
not, this condition should not be
taken into consideration
Thomas Tatnall. representing the
property owners, testified that some
time ago he had owned property In
the vicinity of the railroad. and had
NaAu'u II at iAlni f-fhNV ~ HnfNN's
He said that although the properties
we're below grade before the addition
al grade was made in the street. the
additional grade, which is about FIVE
feet, would make Il necessary to
build a wall along all the properties
which would be five feet higher by
the change Of grade and would have
to be thicker at the base
He said the Weldln lot was val
liable only for manufacturing pur-
, poses and he fixed the damage at $500
plus the cost Of the wall.
! Mr.. Peirce, who represented the
company. aid he had no way OF fix
ing the damages to the properties.
= except by his personal opinion and
) that If he had owned any Of the
} properly he would accept the amount
! OF damage awarded.
Alfred d. Moore sale that It was
impossible 20 lay down any rule I'm
connection with the damage to the
properties and that they we're only
tentative. He said that he had no
assurance that the wall would have
to be built and that he thought the
damages were ample.
! Mr. Crossan said damage done TO
property was done when the first MI
was made and that according TO
, agreement they we're not to be taken
into consideration. He said the wall
had not been built after the first
2 change in the grade was made and
+ that he did not know that it would
, be sin, the second change was
made
c. T.. Weldin. representing the
George Weldin estate. said he valued
the property at $4,000 and had re-
fused an offer Of S2,2Oo for IT, He
said the estate had sold the adjoining
/, lot for $4,000 The wall for his pro-
perty he said would cost al least $3.50
and that the lot would be damaged
$3.50 more.
Joseph s. Hamilton, a contractor,
said that the future value Of the pro-
perty was for commercial purposes
on account OF il being situated on the
railroad and that a retaining wall is
lnow needed or would be needed II the
street was ever paved and the car
5 tracks run out past the property
: Thomas J. Lynch also thought that it
was necessary TO erect a retaining
Wall ana lndl III Shoulu ue counted
! as part Of the damage.
Thomas A. Melvin. a builder. and
former president Of the Street and
Sewer Department, said the property
owners would have 10 build wall or
, would have to lost about 80 feet of
their ground which would have 10
be sloped off to support the street
curb. He estimated that the wall
would cost about $4,000
An engineer representing the rail
l road company estimated that the wall
e would cost about $4,000 and City En-
: gineer Taylor fixed its cost at about
4 s2100
e The board reserved its decision in
2 the matter and took a recess until
4.30 o'clock this afternoon.