THE WIDENING OF MAIN STREET.
The Committee, to whom the proposition for the widening of the lower part of Main Street was referred, at the Town Meeting of November, 1871, beg leave to make their report:
The attention of the County Commissioners had previously been called to the proposed improvement, with the expectation that they would aid the town in accomplishing the object in view. In response to a petition, and after the usual public notice, the Commissioners met in Concord on the 7th of December last. On going over the ground and receiving the facts in favor of changing the southern line of that street, they unanimously decided that the improvement was a necessary one to be made. It was the opinion of the Commissioners, as experts in such matters, and from the experience of other towns and cities, that the present would be the best and cheapest time to do the work, and they decided to assess the County in the sum of $2,000 to carry out the proposed improvement. Your Committee accept this decision of the County Commissioners as a settlement of any legal objection to the alteration, and present it as one of the strongest arguments in favor of the contemplated improvement; but, as the work will cost more than the Commissioners are willing to assess the County for, your Committee deem it proper to lay a few additional facts before the town for its consideration.
Although it is so clearly manifest that the widening of that part of Main Street would be a decided betterment to be enjoyed by every inhabitant, objections thereto have been raise by a few taxpayers, which are fair for the Committee to mention:
The Committee have taken up these objections in regular order.
Of the trees: There are four; two on the road and two on the land of the abutters. Three of the trees are button-woods; the other is a very fine old elm. Very few will regret the loss of the veteran and shockingly scared [i.e. scarred] button-woods. None are more anxious to get rid of them than the occupants of the houses standing under their branches. It is true that we should all miss the elm, especially those who have often come in collision with it on dark nights. It now arbitrarily stands on the middle of the present sidewalk and is a monarch very much in our way. It would also be missed for its stately beauty and for “auld lang syne,” very nice conservative sentiments, which the Committee hope will preserve all the other splendid elms in town. Such sentiments, indeed, cannot be too strongly encouraged. Nevertheless, in spite of these feelings, and the real love of the Committee profess to have for such trees, they deem it their duty to recommend the sacrifice of this one for a greater good and a more surpassing beauty and advantage to that locality.
Of the cost: The report of Mr. Munroe, read at the November meeting, estimated this to be $5,000. This, the Committee admit, is a large sum to spend on one short piece of roadway; but where and what is this piece of highway? It is the throat of the town. It is, indeed, like the narrow passage connecting the two globes of an hour glass. One half of the village must pass through it to get to the other half and vice versa. There is no other direct route. The Committee obtained the services of Mr. Jacob B. Farmer to ascertain the number of persons and vehicles that daily pass over this section of the road. It was ascertained that the traffic on one day in November last, from 6 o’clock in the morning to 9 o’clock in the evening, numbered 2,418 passengers, 95 two-wheeled vehicles and 558 four-wheeled vehicles. Thus, five more persons than the actual population of the town passed the Hastings’ corner in that brief space of time. No facts had a more potential influence with the Commissioners than these.
But to carry out the illustration of the Committee, our local map shows that on the east side of this narrow neck of roadway, within the limits of the village, there are 76 dwellings, 3 Churches, the Town House, the Hotel, the Bank, the Insurance Office, the livery stables, 19 store keepers, the Monuments, the Post Office, the Public Library, and last of all, the Cemetery. All residents west of the Bank building must pass through this neck to reach these public places and these private dwellings.
On the west side are 96 dwellings, the High and Intermediate Schools, the Agricultural Grounds and the Railroad Depot. All residents west of the Bank building must also pass through this same narrow neck to reach these public places and these private houses.
These are strong arguments no one will deny, but there are others equally as convincing. Look at the increasing business at our depot for instance. The Committee obtained, last December, for the inspection of the County Commissioners, the receipts there for the year 1864 and for eleven months in 1871, which we append:
| 1864, | $6,071 49 |
| 1871, eleven months, | $38,492 09 |
Here is an enormous increase in seven years for a town that has stood still for a century; and the traffic making up these amounts is compelled to use our common roads to reach the railroad. It is imperatively our duty, therefore, as a town, to see that wide, smooth, and easy highways are provided and kept in good condition for this growing business of our farmers and store keepers - our fruit growers and our milk producers. There is no reason why Concord should not stand pre-eminent for splendid roads and avenues.
The width of the road, at its narrowest part for all this traffic, from the fence of Mr. Hastings’ to the opposite fence, including two sidewalks, is only 46 feet. The width, 300 feet above this point, or from Mr. Collier’s fence to the opposite side, is 66 feet. Suppose, by some accident, which the Committee are happy to say has not yet happened, that this neck should be suddenly stopped up by a fallen tree or other impediment. What then? It is not necessary for the Committee to insult the common sense of our taxpayers be answering this question. But with these facts before us, is the sum of $5,000 too much to pay for the prevention of any contingent trouble of this sort? Is not an ounce of prevention, even at this cost, worth the money? It is not the intention of the Committee, however, to ask for this amount. Of the total cost of the proposed work the County Commissioners have agreed to pay two-fifths; private subscriptions, to meet objectionable expenses, already amount to one-fifth; all the town is, therefore, asked to appropriate are the remaining two-fifths or $2,000. Will not the improvement be cheap for this sum? Voters can respond to this question to their own satisfaction.
Of the tax on residents on the outskirts: Any improvement in any part of the town benefits all alike. If a bridge is to be repaired at Westvale or at Warnerville the cost comes out of all the tax-payers. No one in the Centre complains of this. No one would have any reason to complain. One single street lamp on any dangerous corner is of value to every one in some way, or at some time. So with the change at this particular locality. If the travel on this road should ever be impeded, at its narrow part, those living at the Nine-Acre Corner would have to go, with loaded teams, an increased distance of three miles by the southern roads, and five miles by the northern roads to reach the village. It is also to be considered that these village roads are used more with vehicles by the inhabitants of the outskirts than by those residing in the village proper, because most of the latter are foot passengers, while the former rarely visit the centre of the town as such. These facts are as potent to others as to the Committee, yet it is proper to mention them on account of the mistaken idea, occasionally expressed, that an improvement in the village is exclusively for the benefit of that particular section. All betterments are increased by general wealth, prosperity, happiness and convenience. Does not every one appreciate and admire the neat, thrifty appearance of the roads and farms at Nine-Acre Corner or near Bateman’s Pond? Is not Concord enriched and improved by the late changes on the Keyes and Hornblower Hills, and the new buildings in Westvale, as well as by those on Main and other streets? Are they not the component parts of the wealth and beauty of the whole town? Our assessment rolls and our admiration for rural embellishments will satisfactorily answer these questions.
Of the land damages: In the opinion of many, the damage claimed by one party is excessive. This refers to the sum of $2,000, demanded by Mr. Hastings. It should be borne in mind that his lot is on the most eligible business corner in the village; that it is limited in size and cannot be expanded; that on the widening of the street and the moving back of Mr. Bates’ house, the yard room will be curtailed one-fourth its present dimensions; that a wing of the house will be entirely lost; that only room for a small flower garden will remain - a city yard in size; and that the annoyance and inconvenience of the necessary change of base will be very great. All these deprivations and alterations require compensation. The Committee have taken them into consideration without losing sight of the increased value of the estate with its new and enlarged surroundings, and, in their opinion, the demand of Mr. Hastings, if excessive at all, is so perhaps to the amount of $500. it is probable that a liberal jury would award him $1500. But to meet the objections of tax-payers on this point, and to satisfy the demand of the land owner at the same time, the originator of the proposed improvement obtained private subscriptions to cover this and all other objectionable expenses. One thousand dollars has been thus obtained - a sum amply sufficient for the purpose.
Of the opening a better view to the new library building: If the town were to erect a statue to any patriot would it be put in a back yard? Is not the monument to the brave soldiers, who perished in the late rebellion, very properly in the most conspicuous spot in town? Have not the Selectmen lately and rightly improved the road leading to the old monument near the Manse? If a splendid animal is raised on any farm in Concord, are we not proud to have it handsomely and conspicuously displayed at Cattle Show, and take the highest premium as a Concord production? Is not the builder of every new house, new barn, new wall or new fence, appreciated, not by his neighbor alone, but by every passing inhabitant or stranger? Assuming the affirmative on these points, are we not right in opening a better and brighter view, through a broader avenue, to a splendid and useful public building, especially when such edifice, to cost $50, 000, is a gift to the town? Is it not indeed our duty to have this done? But, after all, this improvement has no reference to the new library building. It is one standing on its own merits. It is one that speaks for itself and does not require even these very excellent reasons, in its favor, to commend it to the voters of Concord.
The Committee have become, in their investigations, and in view of the future of the town, still more favorable to the project than before their appointment. They, therefore, recommend the passage of these resolutions:
Voted, That the sum of $2,000 be specially raised and appropriated for the widening of that part of Main Street as described on the plan made under the direction of Mr. William Munroe and approved by the County Commissioners.
Voted, That a Committee of three be appointed to superintend the work in order that it may be speedily, thoroughly and satisfactorily done.
This last resolution is suggested because it cannot be deemed either fair or just to throw all the public labor upon the Board of Selectmen of the town.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
FREDERIC HUDSON,
REUBEN N. RICE,{Committee}
HENRY F. SMITH.
Concord, March 1872