The Waterbury Democrat., 1940-12-21

safe passage is equal to winning an obtacle race.
 No Justification.
 The Police Board has created this condition without legal jus tification. It has no more right to give carte blanche authority to this Meter Company to place their uprights and meters in the sidewalks and use the highway in front of my or any other persons property for the purpose of con- ducting 8 parking business on a 75-25 basis (the City getting the small end) than I have and I am sure that I have no such right. I have no right to charge persons for parking automobiles in front of my property, neither has this private company. However, I do contend that have as much, if not a better right so to do than the City of this private corporation.
 It is elemental that the city has no greater powers than those giv- en it by the Legislature. It can- not conduct parking business any more than it can sell ice, or milk, or coal, or fish, or meat, or deal in any other commodity. Some years ago the then mayor of this city desired to have the city enter the coal. business. He was correctly advised by the then Cor poration Counsel that the city could not engage in the coal busi- ness or any other business unless with legislative authority; there fore a bill was introduced in the State Assembly, the purpose of which was to grant the City of Waterbury the right to buy and sell ice. The bill died an early death. It didn't reach first base. But now, the City is engaging in the parking business without leg islative grant and uses the side- walks for that purpose on the say so of the Police Board, who has no authority over the sidewalks. The city cannot contend that it is not in the parking business be- cause 1t has acknowledged that it is in said business and expects to reap an annual income therefore of $70,00O. (See the Budget) To me it is perfectly apparent that the Police Board cannot legally authorize the city to conduct such a business. The Police Board cannot use the fact that it is the traffic authority as a subterfuge to authorize the City to illegally conduct a parking business on the city's sidewalks.
 Damages For Injuries.
 Then there is the payment of money damage for personal injur- ies to be considered. Unques- tionably the city is in for multi farious lawsuits as the result of these hazards. In my opinion the city will get handsomely loaded with plaintiffs verdicts. Query: Is the city guaranteed against loss from such verdicts by public lia- bility policy furnished by the fla vored Company? will the mem berS of the Police Board who have exceeded their powers and created the hazards pay the verdicts? Will the premium oh public liability in- surance for abutting owners in- crease?
 It is unfortunate that the city has gone forward with this pro- ject without notice to the citizens and taxpayers and public hear ing, because the rights and safe- ty of all citizens are at issue. The rapidity with which the work has been and is being done indicates that the city's representatives are endeavoring to anticipate legal action and get the jump on an in- junction. After all, this is not a private matter, but one of pub lie interest, and therefore one which demands consideration by the people. The manner in which this parking project was put over, does not measure up to the Stand- ards required of government of the people, for the people and by the people. It is quite possible that in this instance as in oth- CTS, 'shaste makes waste"
 Of course my prior letter was the initial step which may serve as the forerunner of civil action asking for injunctive relief. How ever, will make no move which might stay progress and then, of course, you know the old adage about what happens to the law yer who is his own client.
 -----------------------+----
 Sir Francis Drake landed in