Harrisburg telegraph. [volume] (Harrisburg, Pa.) 1879-1948, 1915-09-04
PENBROOK PAVING
AGAIN HELD UP
[Continued From First Page.l

CONTINUED From First Page.l
efforts to solve the improvement prob
lem to the satisfaction Of all con-
cerned.
Subject to a special call for general
business and to consider reports from
the committee on petitions before ad-
Vancing the paving ordinance to
second reading, the council met in the
town hall. Reports were received,
showing that only about a dozen had
failed to sign the petitions which in
cluded approximately three-fourths
OF the frontage and assurances to the
effect that others had signified their
intention of signing which would bring
the frontage over four-flfths in favor
of the proposed paving.
Amendments were passed that would
require the traction company to pave
with the same material between the
| tracks and three wooden blocks out
side and two inside of each rail. Also
a provision that the cost or paving
should not exceed S1.90 per square
| yard and curbing not over fifty cents a
foot. This business completed with
ample opportunity for discussion or
objection, the council decided to lay
the ordinance over for second read
ing until the regular meeting which
was scheduled for Tuesday evening.
Up to this time nothing unusual SEEM
ed about to occur, also several new
faces had presented themselves which
never before had been in evidence at
any of the meetings that have been
held during July and August to con-
slider the paving. But evidently some
star chamber sessions had been held
elsewhere than in the council room,
because under the head of new busi-
ness a petition was presented by one
of the signers in favor of paving, ask
ing that his name and two or three
others should be withdrawn. The
reasons given were that it seemed
evident the council intended to pass
the ordinance even though all sigma
toure could not be secured and the
petition set forth several other pre-
texts why they were not in favor of
going ahead with the paving. With
out further discussion the meeting ad
journed after placing the petition on
file.
After the meeting councilmen and
officials of the borough expressed
their personal views, saying that at
no time had there been any intention
of railroading any ordinance through.
The paving had been under discus
sion for several months. Everybody
had ample opportunity to consider the
matter and to raise objections. No
secret sessions had been held. Every
discussion was open and above board.
The intention of council had been duly
advertised and the Penbrook News had
published a number of articles inviting
the residents of Penbrook to come and
participate in the meetings. Petitions
had been circulated giving all abutting
property owners the privilege of ex-
pressing their preference for either
Forty-nine had signed and thirteen
had so far failed to subscribe, but a
number of which had signified their
intention of doing so.
The opposition which manifested
itself last evening contends that the
Telford foundation can be used and
resurfaced and that the borough of
Penbrook can afford to turn down the
$4,000 from the State and do the
work for less money at the property
owners expense and proposes to main
tain the upkeep cost of repairs to the
road for less than If the State paid
half of the repair bill. The Penbrook
News in yesterdays issue suggested
that it would be an easy matter to de-
termine conditions of foundation and
get estimates of resurfacing cost and
compare that with the cost of new
paving throughout If paid for with the
assistance of the States ten thousand
dollars.
But the councilmen contend that at
council meetings Offering a better
plan. At no time have they voiced
any opposition when up for discus
sion, and at no time have they con-
tributed any publicity setting forth
their views or offered any amend
ment that would show a better plan.
Therefore the officials of the borough
express themselves unreservedly in
what they consider an unfair method
of cooperation for the best interests
of the borough. And several leading
property owners said they refused to
sign the new petition to withdraw
their names from the paving petition
because they believed all business
should be conducted open and above
board in the council room and CO.
operate with the regularly constituted
representatives of the people.
Those who have signed the paving
petition are:
]. w. Hicks, John Kichman. B. F.
Knupp, A. Lincoln Shope, Sam. P.
Lerch, Mary Booser, Mary Knupp, w.
c. Row, H. o. Houck, r. B. Urich,
David Bender, s. G.. Snoddy, Eliza
beth B. Walborn, w. NJ Shut, J. II.
Bowman, Jr., William H. Houser, Shell
d. Fishborn, George M. Aungst, c. H.
Wagner. Mrs. V. A. Brightbill, Susan
C. Hoofnagle, w H. Wolf, o. E. Wag-
ner, Goblin Wallerchamp, w. H.
Hoofnagle, Kate Hoover, w. H. Spang-
ler, Charles A. Harper, Sarah Fox,
John H. Potteiger, Edwin H. Stouffer,
Andrew Schlosser, B. Frank Ober ].
A. Miller. M. L. Feeser, Sr., Ira II.
Nisley, H. o. Walmer, C. H. Ruhl,
John H. Siders, S. A. Fishburn, M. L.
Ludwick, James NJ. Dare, A. N. Ulrich,
H. H. Hahn, Joseph Cooper, Isaac
Ulrich, DR.. Lawson, Mrs. G. Knupp,
and r. M. Hoover.
The ones that asked to have their
names withdrawn are George M.
Aungst S. G., Snoddy and w. H, Wolf