That failure of administration has resul_Carrying out the city plan

failure of public opinion to correct the practice of juries of giving

awards “contrary to the facts and the law” to the persons whose

lands are taken for public use; and from the persistent failure of

the Legislature to correct the obvious shortcomings of the law. For

this failure of public opinion and of the Legislature there are

various reasons. In the first place, it has been entirely impossible

to overcome the public sympathy with the private individual against

whom the city was proceeding. That sympathy is based largely upon the

notion, ineradicable from the mind of the average citizen, that the

city, like the State, has large resources upon which it can draw,

and which it can replenish without in any way affecting the citizen.

This sympathy with the individual and this optimism as to the city’s

resources acted with all the more freedom from check, since the laws

which authorized the cities to go into real estate speculations for

the purpose of recovering a part of the cost of street improvements

were not enacted in response to any general or compelling conviction of

the body of the citizens, that the cost of street improvements must be

reduced. The average man takes no permanent interest in the question of

the cost of public improvements; and laws of the kind here discussed

are enacted only in consequence of the activity of a small body of

citizens, who appreciate keenly the necessity of husbanding the city’s

resources. When such laws, which have been enacted without the support

of an intelligent and compelling public spirit, come to be administered

by the average juror, the city’s interests inevitably are lost sight

of, in the desire to do ample justice to the individual whose property

the city takes by compulsory powers.

* * * * *

Turning next to the question whether the cities whose operations have

been examined have been able to sell to the best advantage the lands

acquired, the answer once more is in the negative. Baron Haussmann,

summing up his vast experience with city activity and private activity

in Paris in 1852 to 1869, said that private enterprise had innumerable

ways of nursing and developing real estate that the city neither could

invent nor imitate.

* * * * *

In conclusion, it may be added that in Paris there has been since 1876

an exceedingly intelligent minority which has held that the city should

not itself execute any more street improvements, but should leave such

operations to private enterprise, subsidizing the latter for that

purpose.

In London, the Metropolitan Board of Works was succeeded in 1889 by the

London County Council. The latter body in 1890 asked Parliament for

permission to supplement the practice of “recoupment” by the so-called

American practice of assessing a betterment tax upon property enhanced

in value by public improvements. One may, perhaps, go farther, and say

that the London County Council was ready to place its main reliance

upon the practice of assessing a betterment tax, and to relegate to a

subsidiary position the practice of recoupment. Be that as it may, the

London County Council, from 1890 to 1898, declined to proceed with any

large improvement schemes, because Parliament refused to give it power

to employ the betterment system as extensively as it desired to employ

it. In 1898, or 1899, Parliament yielded, and the London County Council

proceeded with the Strand improvement scheme.

REPORT ON THE FRENCH SYSTEM FOR TAKING LAND BY RIGHT OF EMINENT DOMAIN.

House Doc. 288, pp. 44-52

In order to appreciate the system which obtains in France for taking

land by right of eminent domain, it should be understood at the outset

that the initiative for the construction of public works is rarely

taken by the local deliberative body, the municipal council, for

instance, but almost always by the executive, or, as they would term

it, the administration, the head of which is the chief of the State,

with his various ministers, while the prefect in each department and

the under prefects and other officers represent the lower ranks of the

administrative hierarchy.

This fact explains why the preliminary procedure, which has for its

object to determine with careful regard for private interests the exact

limits of the land required to be taken, is, even when deliberative in

character, considered a part of executive rather than of legislative

functions.

* * * * *

Provisions for compulsory taking of land outside the limits of the

proposed public work:—

By a decree of March 26, 1852, it was enacted that: “In any plan for

taking land for widening, relocating or laying out streets in Paris,

the administration may include the whole of each lot affected, whenever

it shall consider that the residue will not be of such size or shape

as to allow the erection of wholesome constructions. It may also

include in the taking lots outside of the street lines, whenever it is

necessary to acquire them in order to discontinue former public streets

which have been deemed useless. The portions of lots which have been

taken outside of street lines and which are not capable of receiving

wholesome constructions shall be united to the adjoining properties

either by agreement or by the taking of those properties.”

In order to include in the taking any portion of a lot outside of the

street lines, it is necessary, whenever this is practicable, that it

should be included in the plan submitted to the preliminary inquiry;

and in all cases such proposed takings must be shown on the detailed

plan submitted to the second inquiry above referred to, and if the

owners opposed the taking, and since 1876, even in the absence of

opposition, the decree which determines the limits of such takings is

rendered, not by the prefect, as in the case of the property included

in the street lines, but by the council of State.

The provisions of law for uniting these portions of lots acquired

outside of the street lines to the adjoining properties contemplate

a careful appraisal of such portion, to determine its value to the

adjoining owner under all the circumstances of the case, the offering

of it to such owner at the appraisal value; and if he fails to accept

the offer within a week from its receipt, the administration may

proceed to take his property for the purpose of uniting the remnant to

it, and then reselling the whole.

The provisions of this decree of March, 1852, originally passed for

Paris only, have since been applied to most of the important cities of

France.

Attention should be called to the fact that under the provisions of the

law of April 13, 1850, all the land within fixed limits may be taken

whenever required in order to abate a nuisance, or in the interest of

works for the improvement of the public health, and the surplus, after

completion of the works, sold at public auction.

It is stated, however, that in comparison with the law of March, 1852,

that of April 13, 1850, has been rarely applied.

The law of Sept. 16, 1807, contains provisions for the assessment of

betterments, according to which private property which has received a

marked increase in value from the opening of new streets or squares,

the construction of quais and other public works, may be assessed a

betterment to the amount of one-half of such increase in value; but

this can only be done by an order of the head of the State, passed in

State council.

The amount of the tax is determined by a special commission formed for

the purpose.

The power to assess such tax seems rarely to have been employed; it is

said that not more than twenty instances of its exercise can be found

in all France from the passage of the law up to 1886; and, although

formerly applied in some instances to cases of street improvements in

cities, it seems for the last fifty years, or since the enactment of

March, 1852, above referred to, to have been employed only in cases

where the special benefit was of an exceptional character, as when

arising from the construction of levees, dikes or a series of quais.

* * * * *

House Doc. No. 1096, Supplemental Report pp. 4-10

The effect of these provisions and of those of the French law,

which place all administrative matters under the control of the

administrative courts of which the Council of State is the highest,

and remove them from the jurisdiction of the regular courts, is to

make the Council of State practically the sole judge of the extent to

which these powers should be exercised, and of the size of the remnants

which may be taken, and hence the extent to which such takings may be

made under the law is almost entirely dependent on the attitude of the

Council of State.

There appears to be no question that at present, and indeed for many

years past, substantially since the establishment of the present

Republic, the attitude of the Council of State has been to limit as

far as possible the application of the law which authorizes the taking

of such remnants, and to permit any owner who desired to retain the

ownership of the remnant of his estate to do so, provided it were in

any way possible to erect on such remnant a building which would comply

with the requirements of the building law regarding light and air.

This attitude appears to be taken through solicitude for the wishes of

the individual owner, and to a theoretical assumption that, as takings

by eminent domain are in derogation of common right, they should be

restricted, as far as possible, and is doubtless due in large measure

to the reaction from the former régime, when private and personal

rights were subordinated to the wishes of the administrative government.

The contrast between the position now taken by the Council of State

regarding these matters and that taken under the empire may be gathered

from a comparison of the size of the remnants the taking of which was

formerly authorized by the Council of State, and of those the taking of

which it now refuses to authorize.

In 1896 and 1897 there was constructed that portion of the Rue Reaumur

connecting the Place de la Bourse with the Boulevard Sebastopol, which

lies between the Place de la Bourse and the Rue St. Denis. Although

the actual taking of the land occurred in 1894-95, shortly before the

construction, the decree which authorized the taking and determined its

limits had been made thirty years before, viz., in August, 1864, under

the second empire, and that decree authorized the taking of remnants as

large, in some instances, as 5,000 square feet in area.

These remnants were resold for building lots, and in some cases the

remnant, which had been taken as being too small to allow the erection

of a wholesome building thereon, was divided into two lots, each of

which was sold by itself for a building lot.

In contrast with this somewhat extralegal method of procedure, should

be set the following example of the present application of the law.

The city of Paris has lately, in connection with the development of the

land formerly occupied by the Trousseau Hospital, found it necessary

to construct some new streets, the laying out of which left certain

remnants of estates which the city desired authority to take.

In this case the Council of State refused to approve the taking of

those remnants whose area exceeded 650 square feet, while it authorized

the taking of those whose area was less than this.

These two instances may fairly be considered as typical of the

difference between the former régime, under which the takings in

connection with street improvements were often made without regard to

the fact that the law only authorized the taking of those remnants

which were unsuited for building purposes, and the present régime,

where the application of that law is so limited as, in the opinion of

some, to defeat in certain cases the purpose for which it was enacted,

viz., to ensure that all the lots abutting on the new street should be

suited to the erection of proper buildings.

It is important to note that in the case last mentioned (that of the

Hospital Trousseau), the request of the city for authority to take

those remnants which the Council of State declined to authorize it to

take did not appear to have been made for the purpose of securing the

profit from the resale of those remnants; nor was the request refused

because it was thought to have been so prompted.

That purpose was neither avowed by the representatives of the city, nor

would it be inferred from examination of the plan, nor were the members

of the Council of State inclined to attribute it to the city or to its

representatives.

The difference between the city and the Council of State was rather one

of opinion as to the size of the remnant which should or should not be

deemed suitable for building, the Council being inclined to place the

limit of size lower than were the officials of the city; and it seemed

probable that were an opportunity offered to the officials of the city

to present their views on this matter before the Council of State,

which is not done under the present practice, the standard desired by

the city might be adopted.

However this may be, and it would seem that in certain cases at least

the limit of the size of a remnant which an owner should be permitted

to retain had been placed too low, there appears to be no doubt as to

the general consensus of opinion today among those most conversant with

such matters in Paris, whether members of the city administration or

of the Council of State, that extended takings of land outside of the

lines of proposed new streets solely for the purpose of securing for

the city the profit from the resale of the land so acquired are neither

proper nor desirable.

The increased initial expense involved in such takings was an

important reason given for this opinion, and the uncertain length of

time required for the disposal of the property another. The taking

of remnants properly so called, that is, of such residues of lots as

were by themselves unsuited for building purposes, was not considered

as open either to these or to the other objections urged against the

taking of land solely for the purpose of resale.

The increased expense caused by taking such remnants was, especially

where the land had been built upon, but slight.

In any event the land taken for the street had to be paid for, and

where part of a building was taken the city was invariably obliged to

pay for the whole, the damages to the tenants were the same practically

whether the whole estate or only a part was taken, and thus the sole

difference in expense between taking the whole estate or leaving a

remnant was the difference between the value of the remnant at the time

of taking and the damages caused it by the taking for the street, which

must be paid if the remnant was not taken, and this difference was not

great.

Furthermore, such remnants were found to be readily salable, the

adjoining owner almost always being desirous of securing the frontage

they afforded on the new street and ready to purchase them at a fair

price, which more than compensated for the increased cost of taking

them; so that only in rare instances had it been necessary to have

recourse to the power of taking the adjoining estate for the purpose of

completing a remnant.

* * * * *

It seems clear that much of the effort which Paris has made to reduce

the expense of street improvements by taking additional land in

the hope of profiting by its resale has been due to the lack of a

satisfactory betterment law, and now that the attitude of the Council

of State is opposed to further takings simply for the purpose of resale

the attention of the municipal authorities is more and more directed

to securing a satisfactory method for the assessment and collection of

betterments.

The present attitude of the Council of State as to permitting the

taking of land outside the limits of the street simply for the purpose

of profiting by its resale has had a marked effect on the proposals

made to the city for the completion of the Boulevard Haussmann, to

which reference is so often made.

Until the fact that the Council of State would no longer permit

extended takings for the purpose of profiting by the resale of the

land so acquired was generally understood, the proposals made to the

city contemplated that in addition to the 88,888 square feet required

for the street it should take abutting estates of 99,457 square feet

in area, the whole at an expense of $10,000,000, for which the city

would have become liable in the hope that it might recoup itself by

the revenue to be derived from long leases of the surplus land and

from its resale at the expiration of those leases. The city was either

to advance the bulk of the money required for the new buildings to

be erected on those lots or to permit them to be mortgaged for that

purpose.

If the expected rents were realized during the period anticipated, the

burden on the city would have been little or nothing, while if they

were not, the city might have been obliged to bear the burden of the

interest and sinking fund charges on the whole $10,000,000, and those

on the mortgage also.

It being now recognized that such a taking will not be permitted, the

latest proposition made to the city was to the effect that the owners

of the most important of the abutting estates were prepared to give

to the city 50,783 square feet of the land required for the street,

considerably more than one-half, provided the city would build the

street, pay the damages to their tenants and release them from any

betterment assessment.

The expense to the city was thus reduced from $10,000,000 to about

$4,000,000 (the tenants’ damages in each case being estimated at about

$2,000,000), and though all expectation of profit except from increased

receipts of taxes was abandoned, this material reduction rendered it

much more possible for the city to undertake the work; and were an

assessment of betterments to be made on those estates which did not

contribute to the street the expense could be further reduced.

In what has been said above, the present and the past attitude of the

authorities of Paris, and of the Council of State, toward takings

of land outside the limits of proposed new streets solely for the

purpose of securing the profit from the resale of such land has been

considered; but it must not be inferred therefrom that the only

purpose for which extended takings of land have been made in Paris

in connection with street improvements has been that of securing the

profit from the resale of the land taken.

There are many cases where such takings have been made in whole or

in part for the purpose of improving the sanitary conditions in the

area taken, and where the best method of securing such improvement was

by the razing of every structure in the area to be improved and the

rebuilding of that area according to modern requirements.

Only actual acquaintance with the conditions which obtain in some of

the more ancient quarters of the cities of the Continent can give an

adequate idea of how essential such improvement was and in many cases

still is, and how impossible of attainment it is by any method short of

the total destruction of all the buildings within such area.

The same holds true frequently of small groups of buildings on the line

of or in the neighborhood of a projected street improvement.

Where such a case presents itself, the Council of State does not

hesitate today to authorize the taking of all the land and buildings in

the area to be improved or of the groups of buildings, the demolition

of which is required for sanitary reasons, and of the land on which

they stand. While in such cases whatever is realized from the sale of

such land goes in reduction of the cost of the improvement, the taking

of the land is not primarily made for the purpose of effecting that

saving, though it would be natural for the authorities, wherever such

a saving had been made, to lay stress upon the fact as justifying the

method adopted.

In considering the extended takings which have been made in European

cities it is important in each case to ascertain whether or not

the considerations which prompted the taking of more land than was

apparently required for the proposed new streets did not relate

primarily to the remedying of unsanitary conditions, as the opportunity

which their laws afford of combining in one taking lands required for

street purposes and those taken to remedy conditions inimical to public

health is often availed of, and in such cases the actual importance

of the sanitary considerations does not always clearly appear on the

record.

EXCESS TAKING IN BRUSSELS, House Doc. No. 1096, pp. 10-16

In Belgium since 1867 cities have been permitted to take land by

zones, as it is termed, either for the purpose of improving sanitary

conditions or of improving the appearance of the city, and some of

the most notable instances of the exercise of this power are found in

Brussels, to satisfy whose needs the law was originally passed.

No limit is fixed by the law for the extent of these zones, and the

city is not restricted to taking land within a certain distance of

the new highway, as is the case in the Swiss and Italian laws for

instance, but may take whatever seems advisable in order to accomplish

the purposes for which the taking is made; but, again, the city is not

permitted to be the sole judge of how extensive a taking shall be made.

After the city authorities have adopted the plan, the matter is

submitted to the Council of the Province, which makes a separate

examination of the question by an independent commission, and after

both the city and provincial authorities have approved the plan, a

royal decree, generally rendered on the report of the Ministers of

Public Works and of the Interior, is necessary to authorize the taking.

It is evident that in the Belgian law two matters are united which

with us have usually been kept entirely distinct, viz., takings in the

interest of public health and takings for public improvement, in the

sense of improving the appearance of the city; and a brief statement of

the conditions which obtained in Brussels forty years ago will show how

this naturally came to pass. (See pp. 122 ff. of this volume.)

* * * * *

So far from Brussels having concluded by reason of her trying

experience that the taking of land by zones was an error, it is stated

by those in authority that since she has had authority to take land

in this way she has employed no other method; but, as has already

been stated, it would appear that the objects she has in view in her

takings, viz., the improvement not only of her highways but of the

appearance and sanitary conditions of the city, can be attained in no

other way.

Other cities of Belgium, notably Liege, have also employed this method

of taking by zones, and, acting under wiser guidance or more favorable

conditions, have succeeded in carrying out their improvements without

having to pass through the period of “storm and stress” which Brussels

experienced, and in the case of Liege especially certain improvements

carried out by this method have shown a substantial profit.

It is of interest to note in this connection that the power of taking

land by zones conferred on the cities of Belgium is not possessed by

the State, one reason for this distinction being that the approval of

the Provincial Government required in the case of takings by cities

affords a check against the abuse of this power which would be lacking

in the case of the State.

As a result of this situation, the State has requested the city of

Brussels to make such takings on a large scale in the vicinity of

the new central railway station which the State is about to build in

Brussels, and has made a contract with the city under which the State

agrees to advance the money necessary for the operation and to assume

the risk of any loss resulting therefrom.

I am informed that Belgium has no law for the assessment of betterments.

Note as to Certain Differences Regarding Damages in Case of Takings by

Eminent Domain

In France in the case of takings by right of eminent domain the damages

are assessed by a jury, in Belgium, by the judges.

In France it is not the practice to receive the testimony of experts

regarding the value of the land.

(It is said that in the last thirty years there has been but one case

in Paris in which such testimony was given.)

In Belgium such testimony in the form of written reports is customarily

received.

In both countries the awards for damages to land and buildings, i.

e., the damages awarded to the owner, are considered by the city

authorities to be somewhat in excess of the market value, but not

greatly so.

The law of each country gives damages to tenants in addition to the

value of the land and buildings, and permits such damages to be given

for loss of goodwill, business or custom consequent on being obliged to

move to another locality.

It is in connection with the awards of damages for this latter class

of injury that complaint as to excessive awards is made, it being

considered that the juries in the one country and the judges in the

other are more likely to err or be misled regarding the damages claimed

for loss of business or custom than as to those which relate to the

value of land or buildings.

INDEX

ACQUISITION OF LAND BY MUNICIPALITIES:

burden on tax payers, 22;

by gift, dedication, or devise, 3, 4;

by municipality, limitations of, in United States, 1-2, 14-15;

equitable distribution of cost, 1, 22-51;

methods of, 1;

purchase by cities, 13-17;

right to, 1;

tax payers protected, 17

ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES AND PLANNING, 168-208

ADVERTISING: condemnation costs, 25

ADVERTISING SIGNS: New York court decision on, 151-152

AMENDMENTS TO STATE CONSTITUTION:

of New York, 248-249;

of Mass., 278;

of Ohio, 280;

of Wisconsin, 279

APPRAISERS’ HEARINGS: granted by court in Minneapolis, 27-28

ART COMMISSION: in Greater New York, 184

ART JURY: power of, in Philadelphia, 184-185

ASSESSMENT BOARD:

determines area for special benefit, 90-91;

regulation in New York, 90

ASSESSMENT OF BENEFIT: practice of, in Massachusetts, 85

ASSESSMENTS:

by jury, in Kansas City, 71-72;

committee appointed in Massachusetts in 1658, 58, 60;

court decision in Ohio, 62-64;

exemption of, for parks, 62;

expense of street openings borne by city, 87-88;

first special law in United States, 58;

general practice of, 86-87;

Greater New York parks, 67-68;

Kansas City, 70;

King’s Highway, 91;

laws in Massachusetts, 64-65;

legislation for, in different states by dates, 59-60;

methods of, for street widenings in New York City, 87-88;

New York law of 1691, 58;

park lands, 60;

Pennsylvania laws of 1700, 58-59;

policy of figuring by front foot, 57;

prior to 1902 in New York City, 87-88;

relative taxation on park property for, 61;

unfair features of, in Boston, 97-98

ASSESSORS: appointment of, in Minneapolis, to determine tax, 68-69

ATTORNEY GENERAL VS. HENRY B. WILLIAMS, 1899: 174 Mass. 476, 219-221

AWARDS OF COMMISSIONS: in condemnation cases, reform needed in cases

of, 51

BALTIMORE: topographical survey commission in, 182

BELGIUM:

law for excess taking in, 122-125;

street system in Brussels, 122-125

BILL-BOARDS, 161-165;

dangers from, 164;

decisions, 246-248;

increase fire hazards, 164;

legislation for, 19;

license fee discrimination, 162-163;

Missouri provisions to regulate, 162-165;

opposition to ordinance regulating, 163;

regulations for, as nuisances, 164;

St. Louis ordinance for, 165;

temporary character of, 165

BOARD OF SURVEY: act declared unconstitutional in Boston in 1902,

89-90

BOARDS OF HEALTH:

jurisdiction of, for nuisances, 154-155;

Massachusetts, practice of, 154-155

BONDS:

for land acquirement, 52-55;

issue of, for land payments, 52-55;

provided by legislature, 52-53

BORROWING MONEY: limit to city’s power, in Milwaukee, 53

BOSTON:

area of special benefit in, 90;

assessment law unfair, 97-98;

attitude toward survey board in, 179;

benefits of single council in, 189;

board of survey appointed in 1891, 89;

board of survey in 1891, 177-179;

borrowing plan in, 195;

condemnation proceedings in, 36;

decision against board of survey in, 89-90;

exception to special assessment rule, 96;

height of buildings on Copley Square, 18, 19;

one-way streets, success of, 204;

proceedings for street improvements in, 37-38;

special assessments prior to 1891, 89;

street commissioners’ awards, 37-38;

street commissioners in, 36-38;

survey act unconstitutional in 1902, 89-90;

unsuitable land remnants after condemnation proceedings in, 104

BOULEVARD PROPERTY: restrictions governing, 17-21

BOULEVARDS:

King’s Highway law in St. Louis, 90-91;

Missouri ordinance to regulate industries on, 158-160

BUILDING CODES: regulation of, in large cities of United States,

143-144

BUILDING HEIGHTS: Massachusetts acts, 218-219

BUILDING LIMITATIONS, police power, 140-149

BUILDING LINES:

designated in streets, 204;

establishing boulevards, 211

BUILDING REGULATIONS:

city of Köln, Germany, an example, 145;

for dwellings, 149-150;

German illustration of, 145-146;

in Washington, D. C., 142;

limitations on height and size, 140-150;

New York decisions for, 142;

ordinances for, 140-144;

restrictions for community benefit, 138-140;

type of control of, 138-140

BROOKLYN: Furman Street, 17 Wendell 649. 1836, 243-244

BUILDING RESTRICTIONS:

community benefits from, 138-140;

excess taking and, 136-137

BUILDINGS IN PARKS: not true economy, 6

BUREAU OF SURVEYS: Philadelphia district surveyors, 176-177

BUREAUS: scope of, in Greater New York, 180-181

CALIFORNIA:

findings of commission in, 94-95;

pueblo lands in, 16;

state codes of, 40

CENTRAL PARK:

assessment on land benefited by, 65;

creation of, in 1853, 65;

land cost of, 65;

ratio of increase of land value of, 66-67

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: city hall on park site, 7

CHICAGO:

acquisition of school house sites, 42;

appreciation of lots, 7-8;

commission on street improvements, 39-40;

Randolph Street taking, 29, 40;

settlements for condemnation in, 42

CITY AS TRUSTEE, 4

CITY GOVERNMENT: unit idea in, 186-188

CITY OWNERSHIP OF LAND: public purpose, 3

CITY PLANNING:

administrative agencies in, 168-208;

advantages of unit idea, 188;

commission appointed, in Seattle, in 1910, 196-197;

controversies over civic centers, 8;

councilmen and wards, 186;

departments created in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, 1911, 190;

disregard of expert suggestions in, 185;

functions of commission for, 198-208;

future improvements considered, 203-206;

necessity for correlation in, 200-202;

ownership by municipality essential to, 1;

police power in, 138-167;

politicians’ methods, 186;

protection needed for, 7;

relation of improvements to whole plan in, 201-202;

special boards required for, 183;

taste and economy in, 6;

various methods in, 168-169

CITY PURCHASES OF LAND: supreme court decision on, 54

CIVIC CENTER BONDS: sale of, in East Denver, 77-78

CLEVELAND:

city charter, 299;

hearings by jury, in condemnation cases, 41-42;

condemnation procedure, regulated by state law, 41

COMMISSIONERS:

appointment of condemnation in St. Louis, 33;

duties of park, in Kansas City, 69;

duties of park, in Indianapolis, 78-83;

report on parks in Denver, 74

COMMISSIONS:

on city plan, limitations of, cited, 200;

mayor as ex-officio chairman in cities, 199;

summary of, in cities, 197-198

COMMON LAW JURY: opinions concerning findings by, 48-49

COMMUNITY RIGHTS: scope of, in Germany, 2

COMPENSATION:

legislation for, 18-21;

method of ascertaining, 48;

method of New York constitutional amendment, 48;

ordinance governing in Milwaukee, 25-26;

commissioners’ salaries in St. Louis, 33

CONDEMNATION OF LAND:

act of Virginia assembly in 1906, 110;

advantages of preliminary tribunal in, 49-50;

advertising expenses in, 25;

appeals from findings, in Milwaukee, 39,

in Minneapolis, 45;

assessment of benefits in, 84-102;

compensation by jury, 24;

compensation for, in New York City, 43-44;

Connecticut acts of, 110-111;

constitutional clauses affecting, 23;

cost of, in London, 126-133;

court decisions in Kansas City, 45-46;

direct method in Oregon, 30;

disadvantages of, to municipality, 104;

English and continental systems, reports from, 308-321;

estimation of cost in London, 130;

excess, 103-137, 268;

expenses of, in New York City, 44;

findings by jury in Cleveland, Ohio, 41-42;

for Denver parks, 75;

French system, reports from, 321-330, 333;

in Belgium, 331-334;

jury findings in Pennsylvania, 93-94;

jury proceedings in France, 120-122;

jury verdicts in Portland, Oregon, 93;

law in Kansas City, 70-73;

legal expenses of, 25;

legislation in Ohio and Maryland, 110;

new act, in Indianapolis, 47;

Ohio laws for, 62;

opinion of Archibald R. Watson, 44-45;

parallel of, in Philadelphia and Portland, 35;

park and playground property, 18-19;

parks acquired by, 8;

payment of compensation, 23-31;

Pennsylvania acts of, 111;

Pennsylvania jury findings in, 93;

procedure in Portland, 35;

proceedings in Boston, 36;

proceedings in San Francisco, 43;

protection cited in Fourteenth Amendment, 23;

Randolph Street, Chicago, 29, 40;

relation of special assessments to awards for, 92;

settlements for, in Chicago, 42;

superior court cases in Indiana, 81;

uncertainty of jury findings in, 49

CONFLAGRATION RISKS: height limitations for buildings, 140-149

CONGESTION COMMITTEE: appointment of, in New York, 14

CONNECTICUT:

condemnation acts of, 110-111;

special acts, 296-298

CONTRACT METHOD: advantages of, for land payments, 55-56

COPLEY SQUARE, BOSTON:

restricting height of buildings on, 18, 19.

That failure of administration has resulted from the persistent