WeRead Powered by ReaderPub
Carrying out the city plan cover

Carrying out the city plan

Chapter 41: FOOTNOTES:
Open in WeRead

Explore more books like this:

About This Book

This work surveys the practical legal tools and administrative practices used to shape urban development, focusing on municipal acquisition of land, methods of distributing improvement costs, and the regulatory powers available to cities. It compares variations in state statutes and local practice, draws on questionnaires, code reviews, and on-site studies of multiple municipalities, and treats eminent domain, assessment and taxation, plan commissions, and building regulation as interrelated elements of implementing urban designs. Appendices collect significant statutes and cases and the narrative highlights how differing legal mechanisms aid or impede the realization of comprehensive urban improvements.

FOOTNOTES:

[86] Resolves of 1903, Chapter 86.

[87] Several of the conclusions are found in the Appendix, pp. 308 ff.

House Document No. 288 of 1904.

House Document No. 1096 of 1904.

[88] It was evidently intended to insert in section 29 a provision under which the Commonwealth might condemn the whole or any portion of the “adjoining property” if the owner of it failed to effect a purchase of the remnant offered for sale by the Commonwealth,[89] but the provision was not included in the act as passed.

[89] See draft of proposed act, House Document No. 288 of 1904.

[90] Acts of Massachusetts, 1904, Chapter 443.

[91] Acts of Ohio, 1904, p. 333. See Appendix for text, p. 268.

[92] Acts of Maryland, 1908, Chapter 166. See Appendix for text, p. 269.

[93] Acts of Virginia, 1906. Chapter 194. Approved March 14th. See Appendix for text, p. 271.

[94] Special Acts of Connecticut, 1907, No. 61. Section 7.

[95] Pa. Mutual Life Ins. Co. vs. Philadelphia, argued April 15, 1913. See Appendix, p. 275.

[96] Massachusetts Decisions, Vol. 204, pp. 606 ff.

[97] See Appendix for text, p. 279.

[98] The second attempt to pass such an amendment succeeded in 1913, but it is much more restricted in scope than that proposed in 1911. For text see Appendix, p. 248.

[99] Acts of 1912, Chapter 186.

[100] Wisconsin amendment to Article 11 of Constitution adopted November 4, 1912. See Appendix, p. 279. Ohio amendment to Article 18, Appendix, p. 280.

[101] We refer to clear cases of the deliberate use of the method, especially in connection with street laying out. In the case of parks and parkways an entire lot is systematically condemned by certain boards whenever they find themselves compelled to take so costly a portion that the whole would be a better bargain. Even though a portion of the lot taken might lie entirely outside the line of any proposed construction a park commission could claim if pressed that its acquirement and planting were properly incidental to the park purpose of the improvement; and courts are very slow to upset an administrative decision on such a point. After acquirement the administrative authority can decide that the remnant is not needed by the public after all, and if properly authorized by the legislature may proceed to “abandon” or sell it for a suitable consideration.

In the case of the Burnt District Commission, created in 1904 (Acts of Maryland, 1904, Chapter 87), to deal with the emergency caused by the Baltimore fire, there was definite provision for the condemnation of entire lots in case a portion was needed for a public improvement and for the sale of the remnants at public auction. It is reported that this power was used in at least one case and that a remnant almost unusable alone was bought by a speculator at public auction and used in a manner calculated to extort blackmail from the owner next in the rear.

[102] Le Journal Officiel de l’Empire Français, June 18, 1868, January 13, 1869, November 28, 1869.

[103] Massachusetts House Document No. 288, 1904, p. 58.

[104] L’Economiste Français, May 31, 1884, June 18, 1887, September 9, 1903.

[105] L’Economiste Français, September 1, 1888. See also Massachusetts House Document No. 288 of 1904, pp. 60 ff.

[106] L’Economiste Français, August 23, 1890.

[107] Ibid., June 18, 1887.

[108] Ibid., June 18, 1887.

[109] Ibid., September 10, 1887.

[110] Massachusetts House Document No. 1096 of 1904, p. 5.

[111] Ibid., p. 6.

[112] Massachusetts House Document No. 1096 of 1904, p. 12.

[113] Massachusetts House Document No. 1096 of 1904, p. 14.

[114] Ibid., p. 13.

[115] Massachusetts House Document No. 1096 of 1904, p. 15.

[116] Edwards, P. J.: History of London Street Improvements, 1855-1897, p. 11. London, P. S. King & Son, 1898.

[117] Massachusetts House Document No. 288 of 1904, p. 65.

[118] Edwards, op. cit., p. 17.

See also Report of the Massachusetts Commission on the Right of Eminent Domain. House Document No. 288 of 1904, p. 68.

[119] Edwards, op. cit., pp. 134, 135, 136, 137.

[120] Massachusetts House Document No. 288 of 1904, p. 67.

[121] Op. cit., pp. 67-68.

[122] Manuscript Report of London County Council Improvement Committee, 1910.

[123] Massachusetts House Document No. 288 of 1904, p. 76.

[124] Ibid., p. 76.

[125] Customary easement along parkways in many cities.

[126] Copley Square case, see pp. 19 ff.

[127] Restrictions on certain Boston parkways.