Laserfiche WebLink
111198 <br />Tuesday, October filth., 1932 <br />ere would i6ot have valid ground for complaint against the city of South Bend maintain- <br />ing said parking lot, but that since no fees whatsoever are charged for the use of <br />said lot, and the city is actually disbursing from its treasury salaries, upkeep and <br />rentals that are not returned to taxpayers, the said city and the officers responsible <br />therefor are in effect using money. of the taxpayers to deprive other taxpayers (parking I <br />lot owners and lessees) of incom ,upon their property by reason of the fact that the <br />city of South Bend is rendering free service and using. the money of the very taxp avers <br />against whom said city has enetered into competition to pay for parking privileges of <br />others who wouldnormally use the services of such parking lot owners and lessees. <br />Your petitioners would respectfully represent that in their opinion <br />d on opinion of council the city of South Bend, is without authority whatsoever <br />to enter into any parking lot contract or lease because as declared by the • <br />Appe lla to court of Ind iana , and the Supr ene Court of Indiana: i <br />"A Municipal corporation of Indiana possesses only such <br />powers ar are expressly #ranted to it by the Legislature <br />and those powers which are necessarily or faitty implied <br />or incidental to the pourers expressly granted, and those <br />powers that are essential to the declares objects and. <br />purposes of the municipality; and all persons dealing with <br />municipal corporations are charged with notice �' such j <br />limited powers with knowledge that no right can be acquired <br />by them Tbabed-upon any act of the municipal authority where <br />. <br />there is want of power to so act" <br />G <br />City of South Bend vs Chicago, South Bend and Northern Indiana <br />lRy. Co. 179 Ind. 455. <br />Scott et al vs City of LaPorte et al. 162 Ind.34 <br />Bartles vis City of Garrett, 89 Ind. App. 349. <br />City of Indianapolis vs Link Realty L'o. 179 ITE574 <br />We respectfully request, therefore, that the City council do and <br />take one of two steps; notify the owners of said ground from which the city has under- <br />taken to lease the same that the lease is void and candelled; or, that this council <br />do requdre such regulations and charges to be made affecting the said use of sai d <br />1 <br />parking lot to the end that the income therefrom will at least equal or exceed the <br />expense of operation including the payment of rentals under any lease or contract the <br />said City of South Bend, Indiana,, has and eF taken to make with others. <br />signed by Holycro ss & Nye, Central P�, rk ing Place, James A. Judie <br />Central Garage, The Big Lot, Lopp Service, <br />- <br />South Bid P§rking Lot Co. A. k'. Allen, J. ioffman <br />J. h% Miller, H. G. Schricker, Ireland. Garage, <br />E. A. Ireland. <br />The Board asked the two councilmen present to obtain the sentiments I <br />i <br />of the other membe-_rs of the Council. 1 r. Hull reported that he had personally talked <br />i <br />over the phone with all of the members of the Council except Ivr. John Hiss, who is out <br />of the City, and these members were favorable to having the Board of Works comply with <br />the petition presented to the Council. It was therefore, by unanimous vote, decided J' • <br />;I <br />that beginning- Thursday, October 13th. , 1932, a fee of .100- be charged for all cars <br />using said Municipal Parking Lot. Clerk instructed to advise Street Commissioner Guy <br />D. Staples, so that the signs at the parking lot may be changed. <br />