Palisadian., 1924-08-15
PASSAGE OF The LAWT0N AVENUE
IMPROVEMENT ORDINANCE is NOW
NOT SURE AS OPPONENTS INCREASE
Hearing Held Monday Night and Four Sgners of Petition
Ask Names Be Taken Off; Two Councilmen Vote
Against Taking Ordinance Upon First Reading Is
Continued First Reading Until Next Meeting.

At meeting of the Cliffside Park
Mayor and Council ON last Monday
night again the proposed Lawton ave-
nue. improvement was the storm CEN
ter, and when the hearing on the or
'dinance was called Carl S. Kuebler,
an attorney retained by the opponents,
protested in their behalf against the
passage of the ordinance.
Mr.. Kuebler called the Mayor and
Councils attention to the fact that
four persons who had signed the petit
tion in favor of the improvement had
that same evening declared that they
wanted their names withdrawn and
placed ON the petition opposing it.
He stated that of the twenty-five prop
erty owners on the two blocks of Law
ton avenue affected but six were in
favor of the Improvement, and one of
those six was doubtful now as to the
wisdom of the project at this time.
He stated that the frontage represent
ed by those who oppose the improve
ment, including the Board of Educa-
tion who own 200 feet, is 1926 feet
as compared with 975 owned by those
in favor. The attorney felt that the
Board of Education has the right to
approve or object to street improve.
ment and stated that their vote in the
matter should be counted. Among
L. L..
was unwise to make school street
the first one to be paved, because of
the inevitable increase in traffic
which meant increased hazard to the
children.
When the communications were
read, letters from Adaline Manfredi
and Mary Schombert asked that their
names be taken off the petition in
favor of the improvement, and so did
Frank Dalheim and S. McEkole.
Commenting on the situation, Mayor
Marini said that he was not positive
that all of the people were under the
correct impression regarding the cost
of the improvement, and in reply Mr..
Kuebler said that they expected the
cost to be about $500 for a 25 foot lot
The mayor said that it was his un-
derstanding that some of them were
given to believe that the cost would
be about $4O0 for 25 foot lot
Mr.. c. ]. Leeger, champion of the
improvement, in rebuttal said that they
had no attorney to represent them,
but he would say few words. In ex-
Ioi iy,in lat ha
that Mr.. Dalheim was in favor of the
improvement and, having failed to get
him to change his mind, the opposi-
tion must have gone to see his wife.
He said that Mr.. Berls had approach
ed neighbor and tried to persuade
him to change his mind, and he felt
that undue persuasion was being
used by the opponents. He said that
Sc families were to be benefited by
the improvement, there being % in
just one apartment house along the
street, and it should go through.
The attorney for the other side ex-.
planned that Mrs. Dalheim was the
owner of the property and not Mr..
Dalheim.
Mr.. Mccarthy, leader of the opposi-
tion, in reply to Mr.. Leeger said that
the letters which had been read were
left at his home and no persuasion
was used to get them. He said tnat
although Mr.. Goemann had signed the
petition in favor of the improvement
as an individual property owner as
member of the school board he had
voted against it. He said further that
the builder of the new apartment
house had spoiled the street with his
trucks, and the residents of Lawton
avenue did not intend to pay for
permanent expensive improvement
at this time. ( Mr.. Mccarthy said if
there was a general movement for the
improvement of streets that would be
a different thing, and he wanted to
know something more definite about
the cost before he would be in favor
of it.
The builder said few words, stat
ing that he had spent many hundreds
of dollars to fix the street in front of
his and adjoining property to allow
free passage for pedestrians and
vehicles from Grant to Lawton ave-
nues along the car track.
When the resolution to take the or
dinance up on first reading was in
troduced Councilmen Meyer and Diet
rich, voted no, and Councilmen Mich
aelsen, Woodcock and Weiss voted
yes. Because Councilman Schweitzer
was not present it was considered
best to continue the ordinance on it's
first reading until the next meeting,
when the entire council will be pres