Perth Amboy evening news., 1923-05-11

held was a little different than "a
Toolan csse, as the question is ho4
much will the building be damage
after the twenty-five feet in front
removed. He pointed cut that II tn
building can be moved it is the dutI
of the commission to add the moviu1
of this building and putting it bae
into condition in their award. IL
cannot be done. =. Barkalow de
cIared the commission must decldI
what thebuilding is worth. He the7
quoted law to show that the rail
road cannot take the building undeI
condemnation proceedings. il therI
is any way in which that building
can be moved.
Mr.. Barkaiow said that he ha1
doubts that the sale of this Suil1
ing was a legitimate one as only
fool would pay $4,000 for tn
property. He declared if the testl
mony was followed the property
not worth more than $4,000.
In concluding he stated that tn
railroad company is doing a publlI
duty and that he did not beiiexJ
anv of the companies want to spen
the money. He declared that IH
railroads want to pay a fair ValuI
for the property. This fair valid
thev consider the market value.
An interesting point hrought on
at this time by questions asked p
the commissioners was that the miuI
ute the contract between the propI
erty owner and railroad is signed tn
twenty-five foot strip. becomes a cit
street and It is up to the city to hszz
the obstructions removed. In otte
words it was pointed out by ~
Barkalow, it may become necessar
for City Attorney Wiientz to brin1
proceedings against his clients Il
have them remove their houses froI1
the twenty-five foot strip piece d
land which has become city prod
/ erty.
David T. WilentZ, reE@essE Asssl=s; = ;. s
! Toolan and Mr.. Galassi, In sunlulifl
up declared that he could not 81
what difference il makes even If til
railroad must take the property. AM
that the property owner is in IN
sa me proceeding. He declared thai
the present plans for the eliminau01
had been adopted in spite Of the ob
Jections Of the cityrand in spite d
the fact that it would probably haV
cost less than to follow the preses
plans.
In speaking OF the value of u
property, Mr.. Wilentz referred
the fact that was brought out in "a
testimony that ToOlan, Wilentz am
Brown are in the same building anI
whether this made any difference
the purchase of the property an
that whether or not WIlentz Ia
purchased the property for ToolaI +
in his absence did not have anythint
to do with the value of the properts
He declared that the value of ttR
property should be based on its Il
ture use and going over the test
mony given during the hearing
pointed out that the price of Ii
property was valued from $l5.0qI
to $4,000
In the Galassi case Mr.. Wilenff
told of the breaking up of the build
ing necessary for its removal an
declared the fair market value to II
from $4,000 to $4,000.
In his summing up for the raiIroa3
company Mr.. Lyon pointed out thl
difference in making awards foj
property where the railroad is al
tempting to extend its line and wherz
it Is compelled TO do the work as
the present case.
Mr. Lyon declared that the marl
ket value Of this building was lusz
what he had paid for it. He pictures|
Mr.. Toolan as saying 10 himself
Here's a chance for me to maxi
money" He declared that Mr.. Toola
had volunteered the information thai
when he purchased the property thai
the owner knew that the raiiros
company had TO have the propertj
and Mr.. Lyon held that in view Fl
this fact, why should the owner havi
sold the properly at a small price,
In view Of this fact, Mr.. Lyn5
held that Mr.. TooIan had no right 4
ask the commission to give him i
profit on the property. He declared
that the prices on the recontructio4
cost had been unfair and that it wa
impossible 20 base the value Of tbf
building on the assessments.
Upon the request of Ar. Brow5
the commission postponed the hearI
ing on the Perth Amboy Flour 4
Grain case until a future date. Thd
John O'Buck case was announced
settled.