New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-06-25

nate hearing last Wednesday by b. Z.
Martin. reuresenting both associations.
Nr Martin said 10 his plea;
The Real Estate Board Of New
York. tho New York Building Manag-
trs' Association, and many others join
in petition 20 your honorable board
4 70 make the necessary arrangements
and appropriations as VIII enable the
1lrcper city department 10 remove
.,'cam ashes from office buildings.
"It may be truly said that other
4 buildings are entitled 90 this service.
but our particular claim az this time
peters 20 Office buildings only, as such
buildings show q more direct discrlm-
,aatou when compared with the apart
fmcrt house and others which arc re-
uIyinC this service az the present time.
Office buildings and apartment houses
/ have steam ashes as n residue of the
same service 90 tenants; first. eating;
second. clcvoting. Undoubtedly
largely increased amount of steam
asses could be moved by the city depart
~tut with the present appropriations
z the dcrortmcnt was moro efficiently
Ouippcd. end if the removal Of trade
waste was eliminated entirely. At pres
,nt VIC are not only paying our share
toward the removal Of ashes, but We
are also sharing the expense Of the
removal Of an kinds Of waste, etc, from
certain buildings.
81 has been stated that the authori-
f.cs anticipate charge 20 private con-
tractors dumping on the city scows in
future. n this is so. 10 will mean that
THE already Disseminated against Office
building owner will be compelled 70
add 10 tho cost Of his ash removal. II
The authorities claim that we are add
ing % the budget by asking Tor this
J unit Of service. we would request that
they ac. literally as the law authorizes
which means discontinue the ash re-
moval service entirely I'm this city. We
have uotitions and letters on ME, M
dorsing our action from owners Of over
$500 .OO0 600 assessed value IN Manhat-
tan Office buildings. none OF which re-
ceive removal service OF either ash or
waste. In Justice 20 these taxpayers
We ask that ash removal service be rcr-
dercd them or discontinued entirely.
What they particularly object 70 Is the
apparent discrimination which compcls
them 20 pay their share for services
rot rendered namely, ash and trade
waste removal.
I've favor the payment for removal
81 ashes by the scowload instead Of by
'ruckload. az at present. While the
trucks NAV average fair amount the
CITY is 0uite sure 20 cot better value ~
payment is made on The scowload basis.
in addition 20 this large expense Is
saved by eliminating the unnecessary
keeping Of records Of city department
trucks. etc. In case OF contracting Tor
outside trucks on truckloed basis. II
might be necessary 70 record same and
soc 10 70 that trucks we're properly
filed. This could easily be taken care
~ by inspectors az tho place or dump
my TIE very fact that contractors
reclaim much OF the refuse before II
goes ON the scows would again bear out
ou- contention OF the fairness 90 the
city ~ payment on scowload basis For
many evident reasons, we might Sug-
rcst that in non-residential sections the
ashes be moved al night
Would II he Efficient TO renew the
present ash removal contract for two