| The BPC’s campaign to convince the public to sell land directly to the commission was largely successful. The commission reported that property owners appreciated its efforts to treat them fairly. "As soon as uniform values were established," the BPC claimed, "there was such a rush to sell to the Commission that it was obliged to hold semi-weekly hearings in order to afford property owners an opportunity to present statements regarding the value of their lands." The BPC insisted that "owners expressed themselves as entirely satisfied with the prices paid." The commissioners noted another positive outcome of these relatively easy acquisitions. By purchasing hundreds of tracts of land throughout the proposed parkway reservation, these transactions established favorable market values for unsold parcels that were still open to further negotiations and might eventually have to be acquired through contentious condemnation hearings.(88) The commission claimed that its policy of direct purchase was especially successful with the "poorer inhabitants of all nationalities." This was a pointed reference to the fact that many of the small dwellings and marginal farms within the proposed parkway reservation belonged to Italian immigrants. The commission was apparently concerned that this population might be suspicious of government authorities and prove uncooperative, holding out for higher prices through condemnation proceedings. The commissioners credited themselves with gaining the confidence of the Italians and other working class residents and winning them over to the cause of parkway development.(89) The BPC insisted that it worked diligently to ensure that all property owners felt fairly treated. Published reports declared that landowners eagerly accepted the commission’s set prices to avoid inefficient and time-consuming condemnation hearings. Despite the purported willingness of landowners to accept the BPC’s conditions, numerous disputes arose over land values and related issues. When the commission and landowner did not agree on a price, the BPC generally ordered an additional appraisal to help settle the price. Owners who felt the BPC’s offers were too low could present their case at hearings before the commission. BPC minutes show the hearings were not always successful and that many property owners appeared before the commission several times before matters were settled. The BPC maintained that this type of direct contact between the owners and commissioners "facilitated many difficult negotiations." Disputed land values were generally reconsidered by the BPC after a "personal investigation on the ground."(90) If the BPC’s final offer was not accepted, the negotiations went into formal condemnation proceedings. When a significant number of purchases had been agreed upon, the BPC submitted a schedule of transactions to the NYC-BEA and Westchester County Board of Supervisors for approval. Although the parkway law gave the BPC authority in land acquisition matters, the commission furnished the city and county boards with purchase information so that these officials would be satisfied that fair values were being obtained. Both boards had the option of referring the real estate agreements to their respective experts prior to granting approval. In most cases, the NYC-BEA and Board of Supervisors were satisfied that the BPC-determined land prices were just and reasonable. The BPC boasted that its land acquisition policy saved a tremendous amount of taxpayers’ money and established a new standard of efficiency and economy in acquiring land for public use. The BPC concluded that land acquisition by direct purchase entailed "arduous labors," but maintained that the tremendous savings and expeditious treatment of property owners were sufficient rewards for the additional effort. The commission expressed hope that future projects would adopt similar land acquisition policies to save the taxpayers’ money.(91) |
|
|
|
|
| (88)Bronx
Parkway Commission, Report, 1914, 22-23, 44. |
|
