Los Angeles daily herald., 1888-07-12
BOYLE AVENUE.
What Captain Barrett Has to Say
of the Law.

BOYLE AVENUE.
| What Captain Barrett Has to Sal
of the Law.
| AS stated in the HERALD Tuesday
there was quite discussion in the City
Council on Monday in relation to the
grading. of Boyle avenue, Mr.. Chandler
speaking for Mayor Workman and few
other property owners who had graded
the street, and Captain Barrett on behalf
of the Board OF Public Works, which had
recommended that Boyle avenue be
graded it's entire length under the Vroo.
man act, in response to petition signed
by property owners representing over
three. quarters of the frontage.
Mr.. Chandler claimed that Boyle
avenue where graded in front Of Mayor
Workman's property had been accepted
by the Council and that the Board of
Public Works had no right to include
that portion in its recommendation
to grade and to force the prop
erty owners who had already paid
for grading to pay foryre-grading the
street, or to pay proportion toward the
grading of another part of the street.
The matter was given to the City Attor-
ney to decide as to the rights of the par
ties in question.
A reporter Of the HERALD yesterday
saw Captain Barrett in relation to the
matter. Captain Barrett said: cit is
charged in the Times that am actuated
in the matter by personal feeling against
Mayor Workman. This is not SO. 1
have no cause for personal feeling
e. 81 4,
matter are these: Mayor Workman and
others asked last fall for permission un-
der the City Charter to grade Boyle ave-
was given, and they did the work.
tition was handed to the
Board Of Public Works signed by three
fourths OF the property owners on Boyle
avenue, asking that the street be graded
under the Vrooman act. We did not do
anything about this tor long time, pre-
ferring to keep out of the quarrel, but
threatened to mandamus us, and we
made the recommendation which we had
right to do under the law"
"The Vrooman act provides that
streets must be graded when asked for
by petition signed by three-fourths or
even less of the frontage. It also says,
subdivision 10, section Z, part /: When.
ever the City Council orders the grading
of street or any portion thereof, on
which any grading has been done, the
owner shall be entitled to credit on the
assessment upon his, lots and
lands fronting on said street
to the amount Of the entire
yards of cutting and filling set forth in
his certificate. This permits the work to
be done, and if the grading on the other
portion of the street is less expensive
than it was in front of Mayor Workman's g
property, he will be paid difference; on
the other hand, if the work is more ex-
pensive, and costs more than the work
already done, Mayor Workman's prop
erty will be assessed the same as the
rest of the property, but he will be cred
tied with the amount expended on the
former grading, and will only have to
pay the difference. The difficulty in this
is that the grading of Boyle avenue, ex-
cept where already graded, is more ex-
pensive than the other work, and Mayor
Workman will have to pay a difference,
but the grading of the balance of the
street will benefit him as we'll as the rest
of the property owners. That is mat
ter, however, with which l have nothing
to do. The petition came to US properly
signed, and under the law we had to re-
commend that the street be graded. If
Mayor Workman don't want to pay the
extra price, the other parties are perfectly
willing the case should be settled in the
courts"
"In regard to another matter brought
up by Mr.. Chandler, let me say that it is
wrong. He said that Boyle avenue when
graded had been accepted. 1t is not un-
der the law, which says, section 20: The
same shall be accepted by the City Coun.
Gil by ordinance There was no ordi-
nance in this case accepting the street,
''Mr. Chandler also said that the city
had no power to sell bonds after it had
an indebtedness of 100000. He was
wrong in this also. Sections 27 and 2S o.
the Vrooman Act, provides that the City
Council may incur any Indebtedness fol
sewer purposes, and provides how it may
be done. This part of the act, which by
the way, was approved March 18th, 1885
and has been in operation ever since
shows that the position took in the mat
ter was correct. We are simply trying te
carry out the law as it stands, and again
l repeat that there was nothing
of personal nature against the Mayor
that influenced my action in the mat
i for