New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1914-03-04
Paving Project
Is Dis cussed
Minnesota Street Property
Owners Look Forward
To Improvement.
General Disposition of Faia.
pess Is Evinced By
Both Sides.

I Both Sides.
About thirty of the owners of
property abutting on Minnesota
Street gathered ct the Commercial
Club rooms Wednesday evening for
the purpose of discussing the cues
ton of paving Minnesota Street from
First South to Third North, a call
for such meeting having been issued
by the Commercial Club of the CITY.
The matter of paving Minnesota
Street has been under discussion for
some time and several months ago a
petition was circulated among the
property owners on the street with a
view of finding out the prevailing
sentiment.
Altho no thoro canvass had been
made at the time, the owners of al
most fifty per cent of the property
AUDITING on Minnesota Street cover
ing the blocks from Second South to
Fourth North had Signed in favor of
paving. After the meeting had been
called to order by President P. Liesch.
Secy. Stoll read the aforesaid petit
ton addressed to the City Council to-
which there were attached the sig
natures OF 81 of the property owners
in said blocks. It was stated at the
Time by Mr.. Ferdinand Crone who,
had circulated the petition that there.
were several others who had told
him since that they favor paving
and that they would be willing to.
sign the petition.
10 bring the matter up for dis
cussion Capt. Albert Steinhauser
moved that it be the sense of the
meeting that Minnesota Street be
paved. The motion was promptly
seconded, and the matter was open
for general discussion. Those talk
ing in favor Of the paving PROPOSE
ton were Charles Steube, G. A. Otto
meyer, H. N. Somsen, Ferdinand
Crone, DR.. o. G. Stricken, F. H.
Behnke and Albert Steinhauser-
In their arguments the speakers
stated that altho Minnesota Street
Is IN fairly good condition and would
answer the purpose for years it fails
to give the city the up-to-dateness
that place of the size Of New Ulm
and a growing city at that should
show to the strangers that larry
within our borders. 1t was stated
also that from the standpoint of
economy paved street would COM
mend itself, as the weekly cleaning
and the annual repairing that Min
nesota Street. requires to keep it in
presentable shape, cost the city a
goodiy sum every year. Some of the
speakers felt that the meeting should
have some definite information as to
the cost of the various pavements.
that are now in vogue before thew
could vote intelligently on the mo-
ton.
Those speaking against the move
ment gave it as their opinion that
the majority Of the property owners
In their blocks We're opposed to the
paving movements and they were
promptly assured that there was no
intention on the part of any one to-
force paving on them if they did not.
want it. It was also suggested in
the course of the remarks that all the
property owners be forced to connect
their property with the water mains.
and also the sewers and run the pipes.
at least to the property lines SO that;
there would be no necessity of having.
the paving torn open later and prob
ably several times during the year.
as has been the prevailing custom.
At this juncture some one stated.
that City Engineer Minium was pres
ent and was in q position to give
figures on the cost of the various
kinds of paving now used. Mr.. Min
ium was then given the floor and he.
prefaced his remarks by the state
ment that his figures would not be
absolutely correct but that they. were
close enough for all practical pur2
poses and sufficiently high so that
they would fully cover the actual
cost of construction. His estimate
covers the cost Of pavine Is feet to
the center of the street and does not
include the cost Of paving the cross:
streets. His estimate was as fol-
lows:
Creosoted wood block paving. $3.50
per square yard, or $178 per lot.
Brick paving, $40 per square
yard, or $163.80 per lot.
Asphaltic concrete paving, $3.50
per square yard, or $l24.8O per lot.
Concrete paving, SLIPS per square
yard, or $3.50 per lot.
After this information helh been
supplied, the motion was 1T. to a
vote, 16 favoring the paving and 8
voting in the negative. The. melton
was declared duly carried and Pres.
Liesch was authorized to appoint a
committee of five upon whom will
devolve the work of getting all the
information that is needed so that
the property owners can vote intelli-
gently when the matter of the choice
of paving is submitted to them at a
later meeting.
Pres. Liesch announced his selection
OF the committee members Tuesday
morning as follows: Wd.. Eibner. A.
j. Vogel, Andrew Saffert, G. A. Otto
meyer and Dr. Z. Schoch.