|
.Ya~uary 8. 1924
<br />
<br /> ~ith reference to the ordinance renum~ering hoUSes in %he City-, ,~, ~ whi~ ~ad been referred
<br />back te the 0ity l~anager by Council December 27th, the fOl~owing repo~t was read from Tree
<br />City ~%ger:
<br />
<br /> ,With reference to the ordinance renumbering houses in the City, i beg to state that I
<br />have tmken this m~tter up with a representative of Me insurance agents in the Clty-~ and ~e
<br />tells me that the renumbering would cause considerable confusion and extensive revision ef
<br />the insurance m~ps of the City.
<br />
<br /> I beg to point out, however, that ~no ~rd. inance can be passed modifyimg or improving
<br />existing conditions in a City without at first Causimg some confusion, inconvenience~and ex-
<br />pense, The present numbering of houses is illogical, irregulam and confusing. This c~fus~iem
<br />will become worse as time goes on a~d of course more difficult of correction as additional
<br />houses are constructed, It would save possibly a good Seal of re~,~bering cf houses on east
<br />and west streets if the~ numbering started-at 'Water St., ~ut with this possible modificatisn
<br />~hi~ I regard as less desirable than the plan proposed in the original ordinance, I recommemd
<br />that ~the ordinance be passed.~
<br />
<br />On motion of %&r. Brooks, the ordinance was ord~ered to l~y on the table.~
<br />
<br /> With re~erence to the ordinance amending the Parking Ordinance, which had ~een referred
<br />to the City ~an~ger.tc have an investigation made of the parking of cars on High street between
<br />Court and ~ater streets, the following, c~unication was read from the City Ean~ger:
<br />
<br /> ~In accordance with the instructions -of the Council, I have hsd ~n investig~tien made of
<br />the parking ef cars on High St. ~etween Court and ~ater Sts. These imvestigmtions were made
<br />on December 1-8'~h, 19th, 20th,- 2tst and 22nd.
<br />
<br /> It should be borne in m/nd that the results show t!~t pa~t ef the cars parke~ at ~leas%
<br />the time indicated, as of courseit was impessi~le for the examining officer te determine
<br />exactly when cars left. He could only take the numbers at ln~ervals amd a sar m~y have
<br />some time after the second examination. The results show ma~y oases of a~use of the parking
<br />privilege extending over several hours.
<br />
<br /> T.he Secretary cf ..the R~tait 3~erchauts Association, which Body originallY sugg.ested.
<br />this ordinance, now requests ~% the ordinance be laid on the ta3sle for the time bexng zu order
<br />that the association ms~ give i~' ~ther study,
<br />
<br /> ~hile I personally thimk that some restrictions on !~=king on High St. within the limits
<br />given in the ordin~mce are now advisable and.~i!l Be absolutely nec?stagy..in t~.e .ne..ar
<br />at the same time- the merchants cn thi~ stress a~e~ the eries PrincipmlmF ~ameres~e~ mn the
<br />m~tter, ~nd I therefore for the present concur in the recammendmtien sf the Association.
<br />this ordinance be tabled until further s~udy of it ms~v be made by the Associatism,~
<br />
<br />On motion- of N~. ~hite~ the ordinance was ordered to continue on the t~le.
<br />
<br /> The regular reports of the City Collector, Oity Treasurer, and City Auditor for the men~
<br />of December, 192~, were presented amd were referred to t~e Finance Committee.
<br />
<br /> HEW BUSINESS
<br />
<br /> Am Order of Court was read that the
<br />error im assessment: Refunds: Erdie Smith,
<br />
<br />reliefs be , $8
<br />
<br />~euri-
<br />
<br />On motion, the Order %~s referred te Finance
<br />
<br /> The following communication wms read from the City Attorney:
<br />
<br /> "Portsmouth,
<br />Hon~ City ~ouncil,
<br /> Portsmouth, Va;
<br />
<br />8, lg24~
<br />
<br />Gentlemen:
<br /> Sometime ago you referred to me a request to draw an ~tr~ckmen
<br />to file a report with the Police Del~.rtmeh~ e~ houset~eld gco~smsved witB
<br />instructions that I give yen my opinme~ on ~he vaZidlt-y ef the ordiman=e.
<br />herewith an ordinance which is dr~f~ed after the Norfolk
<br />of Norfolk, has, however, recently amended thins ordinance ~eking it person
<br />mevimgto file a report of th~ re,oval i~stea~ cf the tr~ckman. The ~ssistmn~ City Attorney
<br />of herfctk tsldma that the Norfolk court have upheld the ordinance, and that they have had
<br />a number of convictions u~der it. He ~tated t~e that they had a t~ou~le with
<br />the negr~ dm~ym~n i~ filing their reports ~ecause ~fN~h~ir igneranc~ ~ng able te fill them
<br />out. ~or ~his reason they have placed the burdem upon the person moving~ I do net believe,
<br />however, that this is going t~ ansWer the purpose cf the ~r.~ina~ce. ~ changed' the time ef
<br />filing the report from 2~ hours required in t~e N,r~eIk 'ordinance t* five dayS~
<br />
<br /> I ~betieve the ordinance is valid as drawn. However there is ~uthori%y to
<br /> the Illim~is ~preme Court having said in upon~Ghicag
<br />~ that such an ordinance is 'an Unreasonable with the
<br />1-i~er~ of individuals ~omove£from place to place ~nd ~%ve.their proper%y m eyed without
<br />~nte~fe¥~nce, and is Voi~.' Chicags v. HebardExpress ~nd Van Co~* 20 A.L.R.206. The ~udge
<br />in.this ~se stated he ~id~m~t agree with the dmso of Wag~er v. St. I~uis 12 A.~.R. 495. The
<br />~a~ner upheld an ordinance of St, I~s similar to the ~erfolk ordinance, and fr?m which
<br />~me ordimmnoe was very pro~ably ~rafte~. Anothem leading c~se o_%~e subjec~ ms I~wSon
<br />
<br />
<br />
|