Los Angeles daily herald., 1888-01-20
LOS ANGELES STREET.
why MRS. Bigelow Opens tn
Case Again.


It is we'll known that fifteen year.
of effort we're wasted in vain attempts
to open Los Angeles street from Ar
cadia street to Alameda street. Wher
on the first day of this year OF Grace
the announcement was publicly made
that this cause celebre wasbrought to a
happy end for all in interest, the sat
isfaction felt on all hands was great.
It is not so we'll known that, after all
there is hitch in the proceedings,
and that after our new and vigorous
Street Superintendent, MIR. Kuhrts,
had actually begun the work of OPEN
ing the street, an injunction,
or stay of proceedings has
been granted by one of the
Superior Judges of the county. This
Is done on the complaint of Mrs.
L. M. Bigelow, who alleges that she
has been imposed upon in the trans
actions leading up to the recent
settlement of the controversy. The
matter is of so grave and general in
terest to large portion Of the city,
that yesterday a HERALD reporter OBJ
tanned an interview with Mrs. Bigelow
for the purpose OF setting forth just
what her grievance is. Her statements
are substantially these:
81 owned a strip of property lying
along what has been known as Negro
alley, and which also fronts on the
plaza. 1t embraces the engine house
at that point, and is 100 feet wide by
155 feet long. The new Los Angeles
street cuts right through this. 1
agreed to give the city strip so feet
by 155 almost through the center Of
my roperty-this to be used as the
street. The city was to abandon Ne
gro alley and half that street, or 80
feet by 155 was to come to me in lieu
Of what gave for the new street. l
was also to be paid in cash
So, 900 damages and to be free
from all assessments for the improve
ment to be made in opening the
street. This was all perfectly under
stood by me and by Mr.. DAILY, the
City Attorney. My attorneys, the
Messrs. Wells, VanDyke & Lee, were
conversant with all these negotiations
at all points in their progress. l did
not think it at all compensated me
for what l was giving the city. After
deducting the 80 feet of Negro alley
reverting to me from the total amount
l gave, there is still 50x155 feet of
very valuable property, and l did
not think $4,000 COMPENSATION
for that. Il is less that $50 per foot
for a block so feet deep, and that does
not count anything for the 50-foot
frontage on the plaza. Had the agree
ment, however, been carried out in
good faith, l would not have put any
obstacle in the way Of opening the
street, as | think the improvement to
the city would be very great. But my
reason for re.opening the case again
is that the city has failed to
carry out its agreement with me.
AS the matter stands, l have
been paid only $4,000 in money,
and 1 have been given bond for
$4,000 which Judge Brunson declares
to be perfectly worthless as it is. The
bond is that OF a private firm, Messrs.
Hellman, Haas & Co., which if
drawn absolutely would be good
enough. But its payment by these
gentlemen is made contingent on the
city's paying that amount to them for
the purpose of opening Los Angeles
street. You ask how my lawyers al
lowed me to take such imper-
feet satisfaction? l do not know.
1t was Judge Brunson who told me
the bond was worthless. But you see
1 get $4,000 instead of $4,000, with a
contingent promise to me to get $4,000
more. What want is the full and
complete carrying out of Mr.. Daly's
agreement on the part of the
city. I ask for my $4,000 for
property worth, I think, $4,000,
and propose to resist the measure
OF opening the street until that sum
is paid. 1 would not make these
statements to a reporter were it not
that l wish the public to understand
that / am not going back on anything
1 said, nor asking for more than must
seem right"