Grand Forks herald., 1916-07-11
CONTRACT LET
FOR PAVEMENT
IN DISTRICT 10
Property owners hold Heat
ed Arguments over Ques-
ton at Council Meeting
Resolution Adopted and the
Contract is Awarded to
G. F. Concrete Co.

AS the result of the clash of fac
itions, comprised of property owners
on Belmont and Vernon avenues ana
intersections, district No. l9, 1nclud-
tpaved during the coming summer ana
the contract was awarded by the city
council last evening. to the Grand
Forks concrete company.
When the council convened last
evening two petitions were on the
table, one favoring the proposed i'm
sprovements and the other urging the
taldermen to reject all bids and make
ino improvements this summer. Inc
opposition was the first to be read
fand the names of 81 property owners
were affixed. This faction asked that
the bids be rejected because the cost
was too great to he considered ana
on the grounds that the majority OF
lproperty owners did not wish to be
burdened with the tax that would re-
suit.
The affirmative petition also carried
just 81 names but it was found that
-four names on the latter We're also on
the first instrument. An argument
followed. during which it was salts
factorily proved to the council that
the four residents favored the inn
,provements as their names had been
affixed at a later date to this petition
then on that of the opponents.
Arguments Made.
Other controversies sprang up with
-considera BILE rapidity and for over 80
minutes the property owners held the
floor. The opposition was led by
Charles Dow and n. Fl. Aaker while
those desiring the paving were headed
by o. B. Burtness and w. V. oCon-
nor Mr.. Dow claimed that personal
influence had been brought into play
- ~,
petition as he stated that the major
ity Of those who would be forced to
pay the tax We're not in favor of the
improvements Mr.. Aaker confirmed
the contentious of Mr.. Dow and add
ed that the cost for the Improvements
was exhorbitant as Minneapolis, Los
angeles and other cities were Not
forced to pay as much.
w. V. O'Connor started the argu-
ments for the alternatives and
charged that speculative interests
were the chief causes of the stand
kaken against the improvements. The
ppeaker charged that a corporation.
which owned considerable property
that would be affected did not wish
hnanciers interested were living along
beautiful paved boulevards, the resi-
dent owners were forced to tolerate
Gust and mud. The heavy traffic on
Belmont avenue was also given as
strong point for putting through the
Contract at this time.
o. B. Burtness also made a. strong
plea in favor of the proposition and
Elaimed that he would be willing to
have the matter wait providing the
opponents would place bond with
khe city to assure the property owners
khat the paving could he constructed
he1t year or the year after, at a
bnaller cost than at present. Burt
hess also claimed that the resident
property owners were in favor Of the
paving, with the exception of about
FOUR, and three of these. he stated.
were now living on property that
ebutted the road where the pavement
WAS already in use, although at no
lost to them.
Valley to Rescue.
The arguments abated and Alder
man Valley made a motion that the
paving committee hold a session with
four OF the property representatives.,
bnd that recommendation be re-
burned upon which the council could
vote for acceptance. The session ad-
Journed for 15 minutes and the COM
nittee and two members of each fac
bon held a meeting behind closed
doors
After about 30 minutes Of delibera-
IOA Iile COIilHllLtSe reported TO the
eouncil on the findings and the recon-
nendation was read. approving Of
khe continuance Of the paving work
ls. formulated at previous meetings.
The matter was put to a, vote AMI af.
ter a revival of the forensic disputes
had quieted, the names We're called
Ind the only alderman to answer nay
was DR.. Orr Sanders
Details Taken Up.
Ia.
"details, in which a representative of
the Grand Forks concrete company
participated, explaining the variance
IN cost schould changes be made. The
eldermen also took UP the matter of
appointing an inspector to work in
conjunction with the city engineer
while the work was in progress but
no definite action was taken.
Following the completion of the
paving work, the ordinance drawn up
ht the request of the electrical deal
PRS OF the city, who desire protection
from inexperienced and unrelia BILE
contractors. and calling for bond to
pc placed in the hands Of the CITY to
insure property owners the protection
pf safe house wiring and the paving
pr license, was brought up for the
hrst reading. Two local contractors,
whose names were not signed to the
petition asking for the ordinance, an
peared before the council and protest
ed against certain clauses contained
IN the proposed instrument.
Several proposed changes were