300 
PARK AND CEMETERY. 
METHODS OF CONDEMNATION OF PARK LANDS 
From a Report on a System of Parks for Essex County, N. }., 
by Olmsted Brothers, Landscape Architects, Brookline, Mass. 
The principle of excess condemnation is 
applied mainly for three reasons, first, to 
secure for the public a larger share of the 
usually large financial advantages of laying 
out a parkway, and, second, to make it 
easy to resubdivide the private properties 
and relocate streets, brooks and buildings 
to conform to the changed conditions, and, 
third, to embody in the deeds of land sub- 
sequently sold such restrictions as are de- 
sirable to aid in forming suitable condi- 
tions of use for residential purposes. 
As an illustration of the second reason 
for having the right of excess condemna- 
tion, the following case may be stated : A 
parkway might be planned to go through 
an old subdivision using one of the streets, 
but widening it from 50 to 150 feet. If 
the blocks on each side were divided into 
lots 100 feet deep, as is very often the 
case, the taking of 50 feet on each side of 
the street would leave lots only 50 feet 
deep facing on a fine parkway. Such lots 
would hardly be salable for the class of 
houses suitable for a parkway and might 
not stand the usual and necessary assess- 
ment. They would very likely be much 
lessened in value by the laying out of the 
parkway and might therefore become oc- 
cupied by a small, cheap class of houses, 
which would probably be very detrimental 
to the parkway and to adjoining private 
property. If, on the other hand, the wid- 
ening should be made all on one side of 
the street the remaining lots would be left 
100 feet deep, but that depth is hardly ade- 
quate for the class of houses which can 
afford to pay parkway prices and mainte- 
nance. Besides, many of the lots might be 
only 25 feet wide. But worst of all, if the 
row of lots which would be left backing on 
the parkway could not be restricted, they 
might continue to be used for the houses 
(perhaps two or three-family houses), 
backing on the parkway, with the family 
wash and other intimate but unlovely de- 
tails prominently in view of all people pass- 
ing on the parkway. With the right of 
excess condemnation the widening might be 
made equally on each side and the land 
taken clear through to the next street, and 
the lots would be rearranged to be 150 feet 
deep, and probably not less than 50 feet 
wide (more likely 60 feet), and would be 
suitably graded if need be and sold with 
several restrictions in the deed which would 
control buildings both in location on the 
lot and in height and appearance, so that 
they would face the parkway, but be set 
well back and yet not present an ugly rear 
toward the next street and which in other 
respects tend to secure a first-class resi- 
dence neighborhood, which would no doubt 
benefit much other property not facing di- 
rectly on the parkway. 
It would be claiming too much to say 
that the use of excess condemnation would 
enable parkways to be laid out in all cases 
without cost to the public, but there can be 
little doubt that it would save much money 
in general and save the whole cost in some 
cases. It would go far, in fact, toward 
making parkways financially feasible. 
In the laying out of parkways, particular- 
ly those which for convenience, economy 
and graceful adaptations to topographical 
conditions and to avoid taking buildings, 
or for other practical reasons, are prefer- 
ably designed to follow curved lines, it is 
constantly happening that adjoining private 
land is left in bad shape. The result is 
that the cost to the public for damages is 
very materially increased, while at the same 
time the betterments are diminished by the 
present lack of any method of affecting a 
resubdivision of land near a parkway. 
Incidentally, the practice of excess con- 
demnation in the laying out of parkways 
would greatly simplify and make more just 
and reasonable the adjustment of damages 
on the land fronting upon or near to the 
parkway, and in the majority of cases 
would be more profitable for all concerned. 
The excess land taken would simply have 
to be taken at the then market value. This 
is a simple fact and one that can he deter- 
mined with comparative ease and at little 
cost for lawyers, expert witnesses and other 
legal expenses. The evidence of a few 
neighboring land owners would in many 
cases be conclusive, while if damages have 
first to be determined and then betterments 
there is far more likelihood ai extreme 
claims and all sorts of more or less absurd 
and very expensive expert opinion and 
sham and likewise expensive evidence. 
It should not be necessary to publish 
plans of proposed parks and parkways in 
advance of the act of taking the required 
land, thus enabling land owners to take ad- 
vantage of the opportunity in various ways 
at the cost of the public. 
There should be some legal way by which 
the Park Commission could exercise what 
would correspond to an “option” on prop- 
erty 'which it contemplates taking. That is to 
say, the Commission should have the right 
to pay a small sum for an option on cer- 
tain lands, the owners of which will agree 
on a reasonable price, or in case no agree- 
ment as to price is arrived at it should 
have the right to notify any owner that it 
is intended to take the land within a cer- 
tain period and that nothing shall be done 
within that period by the owner that might 
increase its value, and that a certain sum 
for the stated period is awarded as dam- 
ages for this right taken, which would 
normally not exceed the actual rental value 
of the property, less receipts. For instance, 
suppose a building should burn down on 
land which the Park Commission contem- 
plates taking within a few years. It should 
be possible to prevent the owner from re- 
building on that lot. In general it should 
be possible to prevent any owner from 
building on any vacant lot that is likely to 
be needed for a parkway, either by agree- 
ment or by an official “taking” of the right. 
In either case the cost ought not, usually, 
to exceed the rental value of the lot plus 
any special legitimate expenses in connec- 
tion therewith. In other words, the lot 
should remain vacant, but the owner should 
lose nothing by agreeing to keep it vacant 
or by being compelled to keep it vacant. 
The more common case, however, would 
be that of preventing vacant land needed 
for a parkway from being subdivided or 
streets graded or otherwise improved. The 
conditions of each case should be consid- 
ered individually. In some cases the mere 
knowledge that a certain parkway was con- 
templated would advance the speculative 
value of the owner’s remaining land so 
much that he could well afford to agree 
without charge not to improve the needed 
land for a term of years, even a consider- 
able term of years, and take chances on the 
parkway awards and assessments. 
The law provides for the payment of 
assessments for betterments in installments, 
usually in the form of five equal annual 
installments, but in the case of such large 
assessments as parkways involve, the an- 
nual installments might well be extended 
over ten or even twenty years, according 
to size, or the beginning of installment pay- 
ments might he put off for five years, or 
even more varied conditions of payment 
might be arranged for. The security in al- 
most all cases being ample, the terms of 
payment may be so adjusted as to reduce 
the opposition of certain land owners to 
the laying out of a certain parkway, or 
certain section of a parkway, on the score 
of special financial conditions. Some land 
owners might ,be very glad to have the 
payments for parkway assessments post- 
poned until after the improvement is com- 
pleted and the lots thus made attractive to 
purchasers and ready for immediate oc- 
cupation. In some cases interest, and pos- 
sibly in some cases maintenance, might be 
added to the principal and collections not 
begin for from two to five years. 
But the delayed payment and subsequent 
collection of betterment assessments in in- 
stallments during a longer period of years 
than is usual, would very greatly and prop- 
erly lessen the burden to land owners in 
localities where inadequate transportation 
facilities or isolation from fully developed 
suburban conditions might make increase 
in the number of new houses slow. In 
most such cases the real estate value of a 
