The Waterbury Democrat., 1938-04-29

why approXlmaCe 8uldeS were not furnished to the property owners. :: It seems to the jury worthwhile to cite certain specific instances
 where unconscionable prices were {; paid for property.
 i Objections Overruled
 In the purchase of the land of the Greenwich Water Company,
 the Glenville Power and Water Company, and the property of the {; Fry Estate, it is found that high prices were paid even in the face 1 of definite written objections by ! the engineer whom the Commis- sioner had placed in charge of the 1 project. The prices paid were au- thorized directly by Commission CT Macdonald, through Deputy Commissioner Weldon, within 4S hours after the engineer, MT. Creamer, had refused to give his approval of the prospective fig- ures and had requested the com missioner to appoint appraisers. In the face of this protest the Commissioner directed the prices to be paid without seeking or se- curing the advice of any appraiS- CTS. It Is in connection with the sale of the land of the Greenwich Water Company that MT. Clarence c. Willard, of New Haven, re- ceived $3,700 out of the brokerage commission for his friendly serv- ices and influence in expediting the sale to the State of this land.
 The Joyce property in Green wich $ another example of repre-. hensible practices. In this case two purchases were made. The first in- cluded an allowance for moving the house and granted right of way onto the Parkway for the re- maining land, together with the cost of building such right of way. The second purchase made some- time later, was only for the pur- pose of eliminating the right of way previously granted and in- cluded the house which the State had paid to have moved.
 Fair Value Rejected
 The Westport Estates property was purchased by the States agent after two appraisals were made. The first appraisals seemed to have set a fair value which the purchasing agent wholly rejected and, concealing the report, ap- pointed another committee of ap- praisers, two of whom had acted upon the first appraisal, and upon the recommendation of the latter committee the price paid was four times that established by the orig inal appraisers.
 AS an example of speculation in land, the dealings of Dr. Alvin D. Wadsworth constitute the best ex- ample. The price obtained by him on his own property first bought by the State was 50 satisfactory that he immediately purchased another tract on the land of the highway in the name of one Mary Inman, and sold 8 portion of that tract to the State for more than he paid for the whole, and had left five acres of land. He then proceeded to buy the Disbrow property in Fairfield, consisting of about B acres and sold 2 acres to the state for nearly twice what he had paid for the whole. In this particular case 1t appears that the States purchasing agent had conn., plete knowledge of the original cost of the entire tract.
 The property of Agnes G. Cava- naugh also represents a striking example of prepayment. In this case the State paid for half of the property more than three times its original cost within few. years.
 There are many similar in- stances but the above seem to be sufficient examples of what the Grand Jury found to be the result of the methods used in the pur- chase of this right of way.
 The Grand Jury feels that every property owner from whom the State acquires property should be compensated fairly for the land taken, and that all doubts upon the subject should be resolved in his favor. On the other hand, 1t seems that the State should not pay more than the fair market value or the actual investments of the property owner, whichever is greater. The grand jury have carefully considered the procedure which it would suggest for adop- ton by the State in future pur- chaSeS.
 Suggest Statute
 To avoid such abuses and waste as we found to have taken place in the purchase of the right of way for the Merritt Parkway, we are forced to the conclusion that ex- cept in cases where land may be purchased for less than thou sand dollars, that neither the Highway Commissioner nor his agent. should have the power to set 8 price. After full considera- ton and study of this problem, we feel bound to recommend that such abuses can only be eliminat- ed by a statute which makes ob- ligatory the resort to condemna- tion proceedings in a manner now provided by law for securing the necessary land, excepting where the value is a thousand dollars or less. The price to be paid on such condemnation proceedings should represent fair market value of the land taken, or the actual invest ment if that be greater, with all necessary allowance for such dam age as is done to the remaining land of the owner, including re- pairs, moving buildings, and all other reasonable items; due re- gard being given for such bene- fits as the highway may reason ably be expected to give to the remaining land.
 In the opinion of the jury only by this procedure can the people of Connecticut feel assured that both the State and the vendor of the land will be fairly treated. Thjc .,,athod also uill AS far AS