Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1916-01-27
PLAGIARISM BY
CITY PLANNERS
HERE ALLEGED
Former EmpIoye Declares Lo-
cal Commission Has Copied
His Report in 1912.
SAYS IDEAS OFFERED
ARE THE SAME AS HIS
President keer Asserts Faith i'm
Commission-Letter Sent
by c. F. Puff.


A charge of plagiarism has been
lodged against the City Plan Com
mission by Charles f. Puff. now sur
veyor and regulator of the second
district of Philadelphia. Mr.. Puff was
formerly employed by the Board of
Street and Water Commissioners of
this city in an advisory capacity, and
filed with them a report in 1912, which
he entitled 1.-The City Plan of New
ark"
In a letter written by Mr.. Puff to
the Evening Star. he declares that
several of the schemes for the i'm
provement of Newark are identical
with the report he made. One of these
TO which he points particularly is the
plan of the commission for connect
ing the court house plaza with
Branch Brook Park by means of a
boulevard or parkway, using the lines
of Nesbit and High streets. Another
feature that Mr.. Puff said he con-
ceived in 1912 related to the treatment
of the meadow plans.
SkepticaI of Charges.
Frederick J. Keer, president of the
City Plan Commission. said today
that he had not heard of any charges.
1T seems to be doubtful to me that
either Ernest p. Goodrich, engineer
for the commission. or Harland Bar
tholemeW. our secretary, would de-
pend on the plans of any other man, -
said Mr.. Keer
Mr.. Goodrich is generally admitted
to be at the top of his profession. and
is man of undoubted honor" con-
tinued Mr.. Keer. Mr.. Bartholomew
has been very apt pupil of his; SO
apt that since the drawing of our
report, he has been engaged as a city
planning expert by st. Louis. and has
been spending some time there. He
will return to Newark either tonight
or tomorrow morning.
Il know Mr.. Puff. and / know him
to be very able man. | will bring
up the whole matter when the COM
mission meets next Friday afternoon.
Further than that, | can have moth
ing to say now
Mr. Puff's letter says:
Il am in receipt of a copy of a
publication entitled Comprehensive
Plan of Newark published by the
City Plan Commission, and | thought
1t might be interesting to you To
know, if you do not, that this report
is practically Identical with the re-
port made by myself to the Board
of Street and Water Commissioners,
and published in July, 1912. | am
sure you have copy on file. II is en-
titled The City Plan of Newark
1T might be interesting to note
the similarity between these reports,
and also the cost attached to each.
The 1912 report, together with all the
maps, plans, etc, plus the design and
engineering work connected with the
construction of the new model town
of Macopin, in Newark's watershed,
cost Newark less than $1,000. The
cost of the present report is four
years appropriation to the City Plan
Commission, the exact amount of
which | am not sure; however, the
first year was 10000, and | believe
the subsequent years were 5000
each. If this is correct, then the re-
port will have cost the city of New
ark $4,000.
Nesbit street Link.
''The report is an excellent piece Of
work, and contains data on some sub
jects touched only briefly in the 1912
report, owing to the short length of
time engaged, but | believe that the
reading public of Newark, and espe-
cially those interested in this work.
should know that the scheme of plan
ming, as presented, is almost identical
with the one presented three and one
half years ago. so much so that ! can
hardly pick out the high points in the
similarity. However, one of the most
attractive points which the commits
sion has seen fit to ADOPT from my
plan is the connecting of the Court
House plaza and Branch Brook Park
with a boulevard or parkway. using
the line of Nesbitt street and High
street In varying from the original
design, however, they have lost the
opportunity of utilizing most beau
tiful terminal vista in the present
Central High School building, and also
the opportunity of eliminating one of
the most Objectionable slums in New
ark, contained between Summit
street and Golden street. In addition
to the above, both from an engineer
ing and a real estate standpoint, the
construction along the line of High
street would not be practical. An
other important feature which is
strikingly similar is the treatment of
the meadow proposition; compare
the plans.
zone fundamental feature which has
been omitted in the new plan is the
proper coordination of the radial sys-
tenn of Greater Newark, and this can
only be accomplished by the complete
diamond on the cross, which / sug-
gested at the time my report was
made. | believe this is vital to the
successful replanning of the central
section of Newark. Time often opens
the eyes, and | am convinced that be-
fore another four years pass COM
mission will recommend its construc-
ton. Newark is a city of destiny,
but before any vision can be consum-
mated or any permanent good eff
fected through city planning, funda-
mental principles must be adhered