|
|
Post by jon hynes on May 3, 2009 20:37:31 GMT -5
The bill then recites the moneys that have been paid to the county by the city in detail. It alleges that the city has paid the company $100.00 in excess of what it should have paid on the taxable property of the city. The entire value of the company's plant is estimated at $1,880,000, whereas its capital stock has been put at 11,600,000 for the purpose of absorbing the income of the company in excess of a fair return and that it does not represent actual value. It is declared the company's income is in excess of five per cent, upon a fair valuation, upon a fair valuation. xxx of the Water Works Company sold its property to the Consolidated Water Company its name has not appeared on the assessment rolls of the city and no taxes have been assessed against it, but all of such taxes have been assessed and paid by the Consolidated Water Company.
Alleges Contract Not Assignable
It is declared that the contract between the city of Utica and the Utica Water Works Company was a personal contract and was non-assignable and non-transferable and that the city of Utica had no authority to pay one half of the taxes of the Consolidated Water Company minus $1,000. The charter of the Utica Water Works Company required that all of its directors be inhabitants of the city and the contract being made between the Utica Water Works Company and the city of Utica became non-assignable to the Consolidated Water Company.
|
|
|
|
Post by jon hynes on May 3, 2009 20:38:34 GMT -5
The bills of the Consolidated Water Company for several years are discussed in detail and attention is called to the fact that claims were made for the interest on the cost of laying mains parallel to other mains on which the city was already paying necessarily required for fire protection ficially determined but neglected to distribute water to outlying districts. In one Instance there was a charge of 700 feet of 20-inch main laid in the town of Whitestown. The proceedings before the Board of Estimate and Apportionment on the company's appeal from the Controller's audit of the hills for last year are reviewed. The statement is made that before the commencement of this action the executive officers of this city were requested, to bring suit and have the matter ju-interest; that these mains were not do so and consented that the complainant might proceed.
Judgment is asked upon 21 different grounds. The reduction of water rates to consumers is one of the things asked for.
Should Mr. Risley and his co-plaintiffs win this case. It will relieve the taxpayers of a great burden and the consumers of water of the high rate they are now paying.
Utica Herald Dispatch Saturday Evening May 1, 1909
|
|
|
|
Post by fiona on May 3, 2009 21:00:14 GMT -5
Yes, Dave, further research through old Utica Directories, identifies the new building as "The New Genesee", for the years 1898, 1899, 1900. In 1901 It became the Olbiston, when Latcher and Nutt, formed the Olbiston Corp., along with the Owens Brothers. OLBiston: Owens, Latcher and Blanchard. This is a good approxamation, as close as I can get to the facts. The New Genesee was erected- opened- in the spring of 1898, and the tenants began to move in. The Kanatenah was full, having opened in 1897. I don't know exactly who went where, because I haven't had time to research it through the directories. I have to loook up each sepearate name, because the style of the directory changed. Prior to 1898, a flat was listed and all the residents who lived there listed also. That made it pretty easy to find someone. After 1898, just the name of the building was listed, and the residents listed elsewhere, by alphabet, if it was a large flat.
|
|
|
|
Post by jon hynes on May 21, 2009 2:21:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by fiona on May 21, 2009 23:50:43 GMT -5
John: That is an absolutley beautiful image and is a print from a glass negative made by the Detroit Publishing Company around 1900. Notice the barn in the far lower right hand corner, in the yard?
|
|
|
|
Post by fiona on Aug 14, 2009 18:58:07 GMT -5
Just an update. My research has fallen off due to other more pressing committments, but I heard today that the Olbiston may be sold very soon, that the owner lives in Utica. I will keep everyone posted.
|
|
|
|
Post by fiona on Sept 2, 2009 13:43:56 GMT -5
I have it on good account that the Olbiston has been sold to a local developer. Will update as best I can.
|
|
|
|
Post by jon hynes on Apr 10, 2010 14:52:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by fiona on Apr 10, 2010 16:56:20 GMT -5
very nice, Jon.
|
|
|
|
Post by ladyoracle on Mar 15, 2011 16:25:15 GMT -5
Fiona, I was lucky enough to attend your Olbiston History lecture sponsored by the Landmarks Society. It was very interesting and I look forward to reading more about it on this site.
|
|
|
|
Post by jplatt on Mar 17, 2011 23:21:07 GMT -5
I had family live there for a while and if I remember right my father did maintenance there also.Was there also a fire back in the early 70's?Great site brings back a lot of the old days to are old brains...LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Mar 18, 2011 9:32:12 GMT -5
There are fires from time to time at the Obliston. And the Kanatehna burned down in the late seventies, I think. The latest posts arel on the On Genesee Hill and History threads at morestories.proboards.com |
|
