The First County Park System in America—III 
are alike; hence no uniform 
system of awarding dama- 
«;es and assessino; benefits as 
O ^ ^ O 
obtains, for instance, in the 
case of municipal street open¬ 
ings, is possible. 
I bis, of necessity, makes 
confusion and uncertainty 
in the legal proceedings, and 
gives an almost unlimited 
opportunity and exceedingly 
broad Held for never-ending 
litigation to “those who won’t 
pay.” Idien, too, as every 
park is different in si/.e, to¬ 
pography, and the other 
conditions noted, the task 
of bxing with comparative 
exactness and equity the dis¬ 
trict lines within which an 
assessment for park bene¬ 
fits should he levied, be¬ 
comes the more difficult the 
more study is given to the 
solution of the problem. 
Shall the park belt benefits extend too feet, i,ooo 
feet; or over the whole municipality or county 
wherein the park or parks are located This be¬ 
comes the troublesome (]uestion. 
Against Direct Assessinent. An attempted par¬ 
tial direct assessment for park lands on the lines 
as above indicated, tends to make confusion worse 
confounded. If the plan involves providing a 
portion of the cost by tax on the available ratables, 
on the principle that in a large park or system of 
parks the benefits inure to the whole community, 
why should not all the cost he thus provided ^ That 
is the almost invariable contention of objectors to 
a direct tax for special benefits. 
As a matter of fact, these phases of objection to 
any plan of assessing benefits for the Essex County 
parks became so serious to the first commission 
that the conclusion was finally and reluctantly 
reached that the expense of acquiring, developing, 
and maintaining the parks of the system should 
be borne by the whole county by issuing county 
bonds, and through the tax levy. It was also de¬ 
cided that it was injudicious to attempt to provide 
any of the requisite funds for the parks by direct 
assessment on adjoining property. The park char¬ 
ter was accordingly drawn on these lines, and in 
these respects it at present remains. 
As to Parkways. The precedents and condi¬ 
tions for providing for the cost of the parkways 
were entirely different. For this purpose existing, 
boulevards, avenues, streets, or other public places 
where rights of way had already been secured, 
might be desirable in connecting the various parks 
THE LAKE IN WEEQUAHIC PARK 
into a system or chain of parks; or new rights of 
way might he indispensable for the same object. 
A parkway being of a definable width similar in 
many respects to any other avenue or street ac¬ 
quirement, the application of the principle of assess¬ 
ing benefits becomes a comparatively simple matter. 
This provision was, therefore, included in the 
second and sixth sections of the park law (of 1895), 
and the East Orange parkway has been laid out 
under the assessment-for-henefits plan therein pro¬ 
vided. In the method presciahed for making 
parkways of existing avenues or streets, there were 
apparently no very intricate questions to he solved. 
It was deemed advisable that the future commis¬ 
sion should have the right, and it was provided, as 
it now has the right, to appropriate for a parkway 
any existing highway; hut as the local municipal 
or county authorities already held possession under 
the right of eminent domain, the proviso (section 
2 of the charter) makes it necessary to first have 
“the concurrence of the Common Council or other 
body having authority over highways” in all cases 
where a larger width of area for a parkway than the 
existing highway is required. The “care, custody 
and control” clause (the eighteenth section), which 
was for so many years the bone of contention over 
the efforts to make parkways of Park and Central 
Avenues, was intended to simplify, not to complicate 
the transfer and utilization of those avenues as 
fundamental parts of the park system. 
Another question which the first commission 
found difffcult to determine was as to the amount 
of the appropriation that should go into the report 
91 
