Welcome to our news and history blog!

Welcome to our news and history blog!

Monday, February 1, 2016

Letter to the Editor: Milo Mead's Comment ("Hawthorne Beach" 1903)

Source: Greenwich Graphic. Saturday, January 31, 1903.

New Lebanon, Jan. 26th, 1903

Editor of the Graphic: 

After stating the preamble, The Greenwich News says in its issue of January 16th respecting Hawthorne Beach, "If this is so, it certainly shows great lack of foresightedness on the part of the people of the town of Greenwich. Here was a place that would have paid good interest on the investment and would be saved to the public for years to come. But no, on account of the few mills increase in taxes the town would never be allowed to own the beach and now the citizens can go and find a place when they want a day's outing, and finding is not easy."

The finding is very easy, at Byram Shore near the burying ground, which the town owns. The editor or sub editor is the very man who has opposed it. Where is the consistency or his sincerity? If the gentleman is interested in the welfare of the public, does the gentleman know what he is talking about? How much would it have cost to have bought Hawthorne Beach, at any time within the last ten or fifteen years? One hundred thousand is a low estimate.

Whereas the town owns the ground, where a dock is proposed to be built, so that the inhabitants of the town can have a way for an outing, without trespassing on the ground of anyone.

This dock can be built of stone one hundred feet from the edge of the shore at high tide and fifty feet wide towards Dr. Nagales Island, for one thousand dollars, a contractor is willing to do it for that sum, and will give bonds to that effect.

The smart editor says further "that there was a place that would have paid good interest on the investment." If Hawthorne Beach would have paid good interest on one hundred thousand dollars, what rate of interest would the Byram Shore dock pay on one thousand dollars? 


No comments:

Post a Comment