USA > New Jersey > Essex County > The first county park system : a complete history of the inception and development of the Essex County parks of New Jersey > Part 22
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23
278
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
the section between Park and Central avenues only, was submitted, and land options authorized, on May 18 fol- lowing. During 1898-9 the crossing of the Delaware, Lack- awanna and Western Railroad tracks and of Main street were, for many months, undetermined problems.
The expense of the costly stone bridge for elevating the railroad over the parkway was borne by the commission. As a suitable subway under Main street and the trolley tracks there, as favored by Commissioner Shepard, was esti- mated to cost $93,271, the grade crossing at Main street was finally determined upon. By these matters, together with the complications over condemnation proceedings in acquiring some of the land for the parkway, and the con- troversy between the commission and the city authorities over the drainage, this shortest and smallest of all the ac- quirements now in the control of the Park Commission, has been proportionately the most expensive, and the time in making the improvements the longest drawn out. This, notwithstanding, deeds for much of the land were given to the commission. The larger owners, whose lands were lo- cated on the line of, and mostly on both sides of the park- way, and their frontage there were respectively as follows :
Frederick M. Shepard, 2,361 feet; Rockwell estate, 531 feet ; Randall estate 454 feet ; David S. Walton, 1,462 feet.
The contest over the drainage matter is yet unsettled, although the commission on June 18, 1901, paid $11,000 toward the expense of drainage for the short portion of the parkway north of Main street. The contract for the first construction, amounting to $24,018, was not let until No- vember 13, 1900, and for the section between Park avenue and William street not until the autumn of 1903.
Owing to the uncompleted condition of this parkway, its short length, and the fact that within this small distance it crosses one double trolley trunk line at Main street, and that, since Central avenue has been given over to the trol- ley, the southern terminus is directly on another double track railroad there, the parkway is but little used. It is thus a constant reminder of the landscape architect's re-
279
A LEGISLATIVE TRAVESTY
port, already quoted, which advised that if Central avenue could not be used to form a continuous parkway "this East Orange parkway will hardly be worth to the people what it will cost."
The land for the East Orange parkway, outside of that donated, has cost about $100,000, and the improvements, including the bridge for changing the grade of the Lacka- wanna tracks, completed some years ago, nearly as much more. What the cost would have been had this parkway been extended from Bloomfield avenue to Weequahic, or to the West Side Park, and from Watsessing Park to Irving- ton, as was at one time proposed, it would now be difficult to estimate.
Why there should have been for years such apathy and official indifference as to securing the two great east and west parkways, which, save surface embellishment, were mainly ready for use, and this, too, on the lines connecting the most important by far of the country parks, and in the direction of the greatest tide of travel ; and at the same time a new, costly and untried cross section parkway was prefer- ably sought, connecting only a parkway at one end and now a railroad at the other end-is a question, which, as time goes on, and the more it is studied, the more difficult a sufficient or satisfactory answer will appear. It is a policy which, to say the least, is not in conformity with the plan and policy upon which the Essex County Park Com- mission was originally established and approved by the people.
RÉSUMÉ AS TO PARKWAYS.
The question finally arises, what have the people of the county obtained for the five millions of dollars contributed, and has the Park Commission accomplished all that could have been done to make the park system a great success ? It is manifestly evident that the park system is incomplete; because the Park Commission has failed to secure a system of parkways to connect the existing parks.
While the parks themselves have been, for the most part,
280
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
well selected, also good work done in securing park lands, and the parks made beautiful and satisfactory to the peo- ple, yet there has been no system of parkways established to connect the several parks, and the commission has failed to improve its opportunity in accomplishing this result.
In every extended park system in the country one of the first duties of the commissioners has been to secure the requisite parkways. The impotent and ineffectual action of the Essex County Park Board, for years, after asking for the control of Central, Park, and other avenues for park- ways, appears from every standpoint unjustifiable. If the commission had followed up the application for the main parkways, with earnest work, as have other park commis- sions, and made the fact appear that without them no real park system could be established, the commission would, without doubt, have been successful.
As a result of this non-action and of these adverse influ- ences, the Central Avenue Parkway was forever lost, with no possible avenue to take its place, as the great cost of land for such a parkway makes it prohibitory.
Park avenue will, when improved, make an excellent parkway, although lacking in accessibility to the people of the county in the convenient and central location and easy grades of Central avenue.
r
CHAPTER XVII.
ANOTHER MILLION-DOLLAR APPROPRIATION.
THERE are but few matters remaining for reference or record in this volume. Although it has been my purpose in compiling this history of park events, to omit trivial or minor incidents, and note only the potential facts, it has already transcended the space intended. Only a brief ac- count or mention of other topics will, in conclusion, be given.
One of the interesting events which occurred after the second commission was organized in 1895 was the action of the old Newark Park Commission of 1867, in turning over to the new County Park Board all the maps, plans and other papers in the possession of the survivors of the former commission. At a meeting held in Mayor J. A. Leb- kuecher's office, Newark, in June, 1895, Messrs. D. F. Tompkins, W. A. Righter, T. T. Kinney, W. H. Burnet, Francis Mackin, D. Meyers and Thomas Sealy, former com- missioners, were present, and formal resolutions authoriz- ing the transfer of the papers, etc., to be held by the new commission, "for the public," were passed. Before final adjournment there was an informal conference, and pleas- ant reminiscences were exchanged between members of the two boards at a meeting held at the commission's rooms, 800 Broad street, Newark.
Another interesting event, was the inspection of the Bos- ton and metropolitan park systems by the commission, land- scape architects, counsel and secretary August 5 and 6, 1896. While many features of interest were noted and others commended in those extended park and reservation
281
282
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
grounds, it was found that there was little, in the various kinds of improvements there, that appeared to be applica- ble to the park problem in Essex.
Reference has already been made in the preceding chap- ters to the petitions of citizens, and hearings given by the Park Board to numerous delegations from various parts of the county. Perhaps one of the most interesting and com- mendable communications was the circular letter of the South Orange citizens' committee of December 6, 1895. The committee proposed "a plan of self-assessment" of from forty cents to one dollar per front foot on property fronting on the streets more especially affected by the local park, which "it was desired should be established, extending from the Orange Triangle Park, by and including the Montrose tennis grounds, to South Orange avenue." This letter, or petition, I had before me, or in mind, when at the Park Board meeting March 2, 1896, I offered the reso- lution authorizing the preparation by the landscape archi- tects and engineers of an official "map of a connecting parkway along, or adjacent to, Mosswood avenue, from Warwick avenue via Tremont avenue to the triangle tract," as mentioned in Chapter VIII.
With Central avenue as a parkway, as planned at that time, this extension by the tennis grounds to South Orange, would, in time, have made a park and parkway route direct from Branch Brook Park, Sussex avenue, Ninth avenue, Grove street or Sixteenth street, Central avenue and the Orange Park, one of the most attractive park system fea- tures to be found in this country.
On May 6, 1898, the landscape architects and engineers, Messrs. Barrett and Bogart, made a report to the commis- sion on the subject of a parkway on the lines of Mosswood avenue, the plan to include a proposed gift of land just previously offered by Sidney M. Colgate. No action, how- ever, was taken.
August 20, 1898, a delegation of citizens from Belleville petitioned for a parkway from the Second River northerly to the county line. The district was deemed too sparsely
283
ANOTHER APPROPRIATION
populated, and too lacking in objective and connective points to warrant favorable consideration.
FOR A RIVER PARKWAY.
The largest petition for any one improvement which I think was ever received by the commission was that urging a parkway location along the Passaic River. Attached to this document were more than 3,000 names, and with it was also presented a resolution from the Newark Board of Trade of similar purport. While the first park commission had looked with favor upon the west bank of the river as a desirable parkway for the future, the condition of the stream has, from that time to the present, precluded favor- able consideration for any kind of park treatment there.
On May 29, 1900, a delegation of Roseville citizens advo- cated the acquirement from the Newark city authorities and the extension and improvement of Second avenue as a parkway from Branch Brook Park to the East Orange parkway. Other delegations from Bloomfield, Montclair, the Oranges and the various wards of Newark have at dif- ferent times waited upon the commission to urge park or parkway improvements in their locality. On April 4, 1905, a committee representing the South Orange Improvement Society-Messrs. H. S. Underhill, Ira Kip, Jr., Spencer Miller, S. M. Colgate and E. E. Clapp-appeared to again urge parkway improvement from the Orange Park to South Orange avenue, and offering to donate the entire right of way. On June 19, 1905, a committee from Montclair-W. B. Dickson, E. O. Bradley and D. M. Sawyer-advocated more small parks for that locality. Likewise on the same day delegations of Newark citizens from the Fifth and Twelfth wards urged that a small park be established in the northern section of the "Down Neck" part, or "Iron- bound District" of the city.
The chief engineer formally called the attention of the commission on December 12, 1899, to the fact that "the sidewalks fronting the parks were in many instances dis- figured by trolley, telegraph and telephone poles." These
284
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
poles had been in some instances erected without permis- sion or a shadow of authority. The special attention of the Park Board was also called to this fact. The poles still remain.
COSTLY NEGLIGENCE.
On June 2, 1903, about the time of the transfer of Park avenue by the freeholders to the commission, a delegation from the citizens' committee of Roseville was given a hearing. The committee protested against the execution of the plans for the proposed Park avenue bridge over the Lackawanna tracks at Thirteenth street, which, it was de- clared, would "disfigure an approach to Branch Brook Park and would prove dangerous to drivers and pedestrians." The bridge as then planned was to narrow the roadway down to a width of only forty feet. A conference with the railroad officials was, by the commission, requested. The company at once took the ground that as the specifications with the freeholders and the Newark and East Orange authorities had been agreed upon, the charge in widening the bridge to the requisite width must be borne by the commission.
In the seventh annual report of the Park Department, reference is made to the "negotiations with the railroad authorities in the endeavor to have the bridge, which is to cross the tracks, as much in conformity with park design as possible," but, as the railroad had "secured the proper consents, whatever is done toward altering them (the plans) must be at the expense of the county."
As early as February 24, 1902, the Newark Board of Works had asked for a conference with the East Orange authorities regarding this bridge. At the time, in 1903, the specifications were agreed to, it was well known to those interested that the traction company had capitulated as to surrendering Park avenue-as evidenced by the expressed willingness of the freeholders to transfer that avenue to the Park Commission-and that it was to be a parkway.
Why, therefore, no attention was given to the requisite
285
ANOTHER APPROPRIATION
width of the bridge before the specifications were agreed to by the freeholders, or what the "much-counseled" counsel was doing, entrusted as he was with the legal matters of, and drawing a salary from, both the Board of Freeholders and the Park Board, in approving those specifications, which were sure to throw upon the taxpayers of the county the entire fifteen or twenty thousand dollars' expense for making the necessary changes afterward, is a matter re- garding which I do not think any satisfactory explanation has ever been attempted.
SMALLER PARKS.
Besides the parks now under the control of the Park Board and already referred to, there were two small areas, transferred by local authorities, which have received park treatment, or are in process of improvement by the com- mission. Early in 1898 the authorities of East Orange de- cided to turn over to the permanent care of the commission the land comprising about fifteen acres on the border line of Bloomfield, which tract had been formerly used in con- nection with the local sewerage system as disposal works. The proposition was to transfer the land without cost to the county on condition that it should be made a park. The matter was afterward submitted to a vote of the city elec- torate and approved by a liberal majority. The tender was accepted by the commission December 10. On October 23, 1900, $5,000 was appropriated for improvements. The grounds have been laid out and planted and now constitute Watsessing Park.
It was also at the same time proposed to transfer the small unimproved tract in the southern part of East Orange, known as Elmwood Park, and an ordinance was drawn for that purpose. The commission, however, did not accept it.
At the Park Board meeting of August 15, 1902, the com- mission voted to accept the thirteen acres of park land which had been presented to Montclair Township by C. W. Anderson, and which, in turn, had been offered the com-
286
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
mission on condition that the tract be improved and main- tained as one of the county parks. The formal transfer was made June 23, 1903. This tract, like the Watsessing Park, is isolated from the other and larger parks and both must remain in future, as now, local parks, outside of any connective features of the county park system.
PARK FOUNTAIN.
One of the local attractions in Branch Brook Park is the fountain in the old city reservoir. Its construction was authorized June 30, 1903, "Not to cost more than $2,000." The water is supplied from the Newark supply mains with- out charge. The four-inch centre pipe throws the water about fifty feet in height, and the circular outlets fill the sides and diameter to a corresponding height and width. The fountain in summer is always a most attractive fea- ture. The same may be said of the boating in that park, of the flower shows during the season, of the skating in winter ; and of the band concerts in all the Newark parks and the Orange Park during July and August, which have become an established and popular feature each year.
On May 23, 1904, an interesting event occurred in Branch Brook Park in the unveiling of a bronze bust of Mendelssohn, a gift from the United Singers of Newark.
In 1902 two very important matters, vitally affecting the parks, were disposed of-the question of a maintenance fund, and another million-dollar appropriation "for com- pleting the parks." Up to that time there had been no separate provision for maintenance, the cost having been provided out of the available funds derived from the sale of "park bonds." Three times-January 15, September 11 and November 26, 1901-the commission had ordered pre- pared by the counsel, for introduction into the Legislature, a maintenance bill, but, with the usual delay and want of attention, the matter was not attended to and it was Feb- ruary, 1902, before the bill made its appearance in the Senate at 'Trenton.
The bill provided for a mandatory insertion by the free-
FOUNTAIN, BRANCH BROOK PARK.
U
287
ANOTHER APPROPRIATION
holders, in the county tax levy each year, of "not less than one-half of one mill on the dollar, nor more than three- fourths of a mill on the dollar, of the assessed valuation of the taxable property and ratables of the said county," the "amount to be paid over to and expended by the commis- sion ;" unless the "Park Commission shall certify to the Board of Chosen Freeholders that a less amount is needed for the maintenance of the park system during that year," etc. The measure met with active opposition. The Repub- lican county organization was up in arms directly. Carl Lentz, at the Lincoln Day dinner in East Orange, the evening of February 12, 1902, took advantage of the oppor- tunity accorded him of speaking by giving a tedious argu- ment against the bill, interspersed with the usual specious plea of home rule. Some of the newspapers lined up with "the organization" in disfavoring the bill.
The measure passed the Legislature, was approved, and thus became the law, on March 28, 1902. The act con- tained a referendum clause and was submitted to the voters of the country at the fall election, November 2. Only 28,467 votes were cast-16,379 for and 12,088 against the bill, making the majority but 4,291 for the entire county. In November, 1902, the Park Board made a requisition for $100,000 for maintenance account, under the pro- visions of this law. The amount provided for maintenance for the current year (1905) is $118,586.25.
ANOTHER MILLION DOLLAR APPROPRIATION.
Long before 1902 it was known to the commissioners that additional funds would be asked, by another issue of park bonds, notwithstanding the pledges made in 1898, when the last $1,500,000 were called for, that that amount would "be sufficient to leave the county in possession of a park system, properly connected with parkways, second to none in the country," as previously quoted. At the board meeting of November 26, 1901, the commissioners had the subject of, and estimates for, another appropriation for-
288
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
mally before them. The question at that time was whether they should ask for one, one and a half, or two millions of dollars. On March 18, 1902, Senator J. H. Bacheller introduced in the Senate a bill of similar text to the pre- vious appropriation act, but fixing the amount of bonds to be issued at $1,000,000. The bill was rushed through two readings in the Senate the same day. The Park Commis- sion, the New England Society, and, I believe, one or two other civic organizations, favored the bill. The general public sentiment, as it appeared reflected in the press, was mainly unfavorable.
The objections to an appointive commission were again forcibly brought out. There were few, if any, arguments put forward in the bill's favor. It contained, as had the previous bills, a referendum clause. Before the November election there was much outspoken comment and severe criticism. The Newark News of October 16, 1902, said, editorially : "As to increasing the bonded debt of the county another million of dollars for the improvement of the parks, the News believes the decision of the voters will be, and should be, in the negative." The Call said: "Give the people a rest." The Daily Advertiser, while the bill was before the Legislature, March 21, paid its respects to the proposed law in these words: "The most audacious de- mand made recently upon the people of this community is that of the Park Commission for $1,000,000, with which to complete its park system." Reference is then made in the article to the first commission's "promise to complete for $2,500,000, when the commission was instituted sev- eral years ago." Later the commission came before the people and said, in effect: "We have spent all of your money in such a manner that it will be necessary to spend $1,500,000 more for you to get any good out of a large part of the park system."
The bill passed the Legislature, and was also approved March 28, 1902. The comparatively small majority and the large adverse vote on November 2 reflected the lack of sympathy and support of the people of the county in the
289
ANOTHER APPROPRIATION
undertaking. There were only 15,888 votes cast for the bill, and 12,248 against it, or a total majority of only 3,640.
The question as to the constitutionality of the law as related to the appointive commission feature was brought forward by the refusal of Judge John A. Blair, of Hudson County, to appoint a park commission for that county under a law similar to the Essex County park act, and applicable to Hudson County, having been passed by the Legislature about this time. The Hudson County act, how- ever, provided for the appointment of the commissioners by the presiding judge of the Court of Common Pleas, and divided the party participation in the management, by making the number of commissioners four-two to be chosen from each of the leading political parties.
Both the Supreme Court, and later, the Court of Errors and Appeals, June 15, 1903, upheld the appointive feature of the park charters as being constitutional.
On October 1, 1903, $500,000 of the four per cent gold bonds, authorized by the last appropriation law, were sold by the freeholders to the Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company at the (to the company) favorable price of a 103 per cent basis. On October 12 the proceeds and the small premium received for the bonds were paid over to the Park Commission. On January 31, 1905, a requisition was made for the balance of the $1,000,000 appropriated, and, on February 3, the remaining $500,000 of bonds were sold to J. D. Everett & Co. and Farson, Leach & Co. on their joint bid of $107,273. The $536,375 proceeds were soon after- ward received by the commission.
On March 28 the commission took up the consideration of estimates and data, as previously prepared, for the ex- penditure of this last $500,000. The matter is still under consideration. On July 1, 1905, there was in round num- bers about $700,000 on hand, but against this amount there were liabilities and commitments to quite an amount, and more being from time to time determined.
CHAPTER XVIII.
EXPERIENCES ELSEWHERE AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
SINCE this history of the Essex County parks was begun, I have received various inquiries and requests, if I would not, in a concluding chapter, indicate, from my intimate knowledge of park affairs, such changes as might be made, in the interest of the public and for the good of the parks.
As this record deals principally with the past, and the line is therefore drawn on the course of events mainly to the present, I will make here but a brief reference to the points covered in these inquiries. I do not, however, hesi- tate to express the conviction that there are changes which I believe most important, which demand early attention, and that should soon be made.
First ;- Restrictions and further safeguards by statute should, in my judgment, be thrown around the present method of selecting park commissioners. When the present plan of leaving the appointment of commissioners entirely to the presiding justice of the Supreme Court was adopted, it was confidently expected that the selections from year to year to fill this responsible position would be made for reasons of special "fitness," and that other influences in the determination of that question would be thus effectually eliminated.
That a different result has obtained, and that this method of creating park commissions has been, in its practical workings in Essex County, a disappointment to the public, is not, I believe, a question of the slightest doubt in the mind of any well-informed person on the subject.
The manifest tendency of the present system, where the
290
291
EXPERIENCES-RECOMMENDATIONS
absolute power of appointment is conferred upon one court official, and an appointive official at that, has been to create conditions akin to those of a close corporation. This result was never intended nor contemplated by those who origi- nally suggested this plan. Under the usages of this system a park commissioner may be repeatedly chosen from reasons of personal or political favoritism, or by the desire of corporate or special interests to perpetuate appointments and conditions inimical to the public interests, and thus tend to continue in authority those neither competent nor well qualified to fill the position, and to nullify the original intent, and to undermine the fundamental structure upon which this plan of creating and continuing county park boards was based.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.