Harrisburg telegraph. [volume] (Harrisburg, Pa.) 1879-1948, 1915-07-01
CITY EXPERTS TELL Of
HARDSCRABBLE VALUES
H. H. Freeburn, W. B. Moody, Ed
ward Moeslein, Robert B. Ma
teer and Others Testify Today

'Hardscrabble" property is worth
from $50 to $50 per foot front in the
official opinion of the city.
These figures were submitted this
morning to the board of viewers which
is considering the benefits and dam
ages incident to the condemnation of
that section of Harrisburg by the
realty experts who were placed on the
stand at the opening of the city's side
OF the case.
The property owners themselves
fixed from 1925 to $3.50 per foot front
as the value of their holdings.
The realty experts confined their
opinions to the land values on the west
side of Front street from Calder to
Herr and embodied all the properties.
including the holdings of A. p. Dinta-
man and Harry j. Berrier, proprietors
OF the two biggest boat pavilions in
this section of the state.
The Boathouse Values
Interest naturally centered in the
city's opinions of the value of the
Berrier and Dintaman properties in
view of the fact that hundreds of ca
noes, rowboats and motorboats are
housed at these points throughout the
year and both places are gathering
points for hundreds of young folks.
When the two proprietors were
called at a recent hearing they both
declared their property worth at least
from 1925 to $3.50 per foot front. All
told, Dintaman thought the market
value OF his property, including boat
houses, ETC., was more than $4,000.
Berrier's financial opinion of his prop
erty, including boathouse facilities,
etc, was s2S.4O0.
The experts heard by the city to-day
practically confirmed the. opinion of
II. H. Freeburn, 1400 North Third
street. well-known insurance man
ard widely experienced as a real estate
agent.
Berrier's, $500; Dintaman's, S14,7O5
Mr.. Freeburn said the Berrier prop
erty all told was worth $500. This
includes his frontage of fifty-five feet,
two dwellings and lighthouses.
The Dintaman holdings, he said,
houses and lots from 110S to 1124h
North Front street with total 'front.'
age of 74.12 feet and lighthouses.
only $40 foot front was added to
the Berrier and Dintaman properties
over what, in the experts opinion, was
a fair market value of the other 'front.'
ages. Corner properties, however, were
figured at $50 per foot front Mr.,
Freeburn made one exception In his
estimates: the Elizabeth and Caroline
Hefster property at HOO North Front
street was worth 1925 per foot front.
In his opinion, because it had an un-
obstructed view from four sides.
The "Other Side" of the Street
Property on the west side of the
street. Mr.. Freeburn declared in direct
examination. was worth less than that
on the east side.
On cross examination, however he
SAID ne mad considered, in q way, the
value of the business of the properties
on the west side in forming his opinion.
And yet you say" smilingly in
quired Senator E. E. Beidleman, attor-
ney for Berrier, that the property on
the west side of the street is less than
that of the east side?"
whether or not the value of the
business holdings should be considered
and whether or not the experts should
be required to give specific amounts of
sales in qualifying caused several lively
tits between City Solicitor ID. s. Seitz.
counsel for the city, and Attorneys
Beidleman, w. L. Loeser and John c.
Nlssley, representing affected property
owners.
Whose Map?
Mr.. Seitzs contention that neither
or these question could be considered
In view of the recent decisions of the
Supreme Court was sustained by the
board of viewers.
The proceedings this morning were
largely attended and the hearing was
not without its high lights. Once
Mr.. Seitz and Mr.. Beidleman had a
really exciting time of it in settline
the question of whether or not Mr..
Freeourn should refresh his memory
from map of "Hardscrabble."
"Of course he can have the man "
said Mr.. Seitz; hes my witness and
it's my mapI"
Mr. Seitz won.
That the city's experts are ATTENDING
the hearing anything but willingly was
laughfngly brought out by Mr.. Nissley.
Are you a voluntary witness?" in
quired Mr.. Nissley.
mo. indeed" grinned Mr.. Seitz. "he
was brought here on subpoena"
No Voluntary Witnesses
Il bet you I was" heartily en-
dorsed Mr.. Freeburn, to the vast
amusement of host of other fellow
experts. I'm certainly not here as a
voluntary witness
B. F. Blough was called, but was
excused because he couldn't qualify.
William B. Moody was called next and
corroborated pretty generally Mr..
Freeburn's testimony. Edward Noes
lein, Robert B. Natter and a half
dozen others were called this after
noon. The city will resume the pres
eEtation of its side tomorrow morn
ing.
Just before the noon recess Mr.. Free
burn and Mr.. Nissley had a final little
set-to. Mr.. Freeburn had mentioned
the value or a property and when
pressed for a definite statement as to
his reasons for arriving at the figure
said he was merely telling what I
think"
And upon what do you base that
think'?" demanded Mr.. Nissley.
Why" genially retorted Mr.. Free
burn, upon my think-tank'."