Los Angeles daily herald., 1889-07-28
Nlnth-street Extension.


ding.
Nlnth-s street Extension.
Mr.. B. Ballerino has fled the follow
ing protest against the extension, with
the Supervisors:
Gentlemen of the Board of Supervisors,
Los Angeles County, State Of Califor-
MIA:
Having received notice to respond to
the application of W. Gillelen and
others, filed February 25, 1889, for new
public road, designated as "Ninth. street
extension" to commence at the outward
terminus of Ninth street, and to extend
to Vermont avenue. Now, pursuant to
said notice, and in response to that ap-
plication, the undersigned respondent
here presents his unqualified protesta-
ton against such proposed new road.
First. The general public have no
need for such proposed road. Let it be
| observed that Ninth street terminates at
the county road which extends northerly
| towards the mountains and connects,
most conveniently, with several public
roads leading westwardly to the seacoast,
aud also with the Cahuenga pass road,
and serves public travel directly into
Ninth, Seventh, Sixth and Temple
streets. The public travel coming from
the seacoast via Ballona, passes along
the old county road, and enters the City
of Los Angeles by way of Pico street.
This proposed new road, instead of being
an extension" would defect at an
angle of forty-fve degrees from the line
of Ninth street, and, reaching Vermont
avenue, would only serve the purpose of
q roundabout crossroad connecting
Ninth and Pico streets. The public have
no need of such new crossroad, because
Alvarado street, just within the limits
of the city, now already serves the pur-
pose of a crossroad from Pico to Ninth,
and vice versa, for the convenience of
public travel.
The people living on the north division
OF the territory designated as the ''Elec-
trio Tract" have no personal interest in
this proposed new road, nor have they
any need of it; because this Electric
Tract has been laid off into squares with
intervening broad avenues, which open
directly, at only stones throw, into the
old county highway between Santa Mon
lea and Los Angeles.
The general public have no more need
or desire for this proposed new road than
they have for like erratic extension +"
of Seventh, Sixth and Temple streets.
1t appears plain to this respondent that
the corporate owners of this Electric
Tract" of come two hundred acres of
land, are the only persons to be directly
or indirectly benefited by this proposed
new road; not as thoroughfare for ac-
comodation of travel, but by way of an
ticipated enhancement in the market
value OF their fifty varas lots that have
been measured and staked off, all over
this tract.
Second. This respondent objects that
the arbitrary appropriation of private
property for the purpose of this new road |
would be without authority of law, mas
much as the general public have no need
for such road, and because the primary
object and end of this application is the |
intended pecuniary benefit of company
of several persons associated together in |
a private business of speculation in small, |
vara lots. The fact that this application |
has appended thereto an immpossible !
deluge of signatures, is neither here nor
there. Any sdroit colporteurs may OBJ
tain signatures ad llbitum. 1t is sup
posed that the gentlemen of this board
will diligently scan the premises, regard
less of this kind of deceptive clap.trap.
There is no law whereby private property
may be arbitrarily taken for private use
except the dubious claim that "might
gives right" Let it be observed that this
propos ed new road is to be extended
only to Vermont avenue, and that this
avenue is the precise eastern boundary
line of this beautiful Electric tract )" and
also that this new road is to reach that
avenue at point more than a quarter of
q ila fo tho portbUord Of oil racidapta
now on this tract, and at a point opposite
to where this tract is entirely vacant,
and where the owners thereof have
several hundreds of ffty.vara lots for
sale. The expressed outer terminus OF
this proposed new road, is, alone, suffi-
cient proof to satisfy jury that it is only
| a private scheme for private pecuniary
benefit, without even incidental convent
ence to the general public. There is no
law whereby private property may be
arbitrarily appropriated to private use,
whatever may be offered as compensa
ton.
Third. While this proposed new road
| would be a private pecuniary benefit to
the corporate owners of that Electric
Tract" of some two hundred acres of
land as suburb to the city, it would be
| at the same time an inconvenience and
of great pecuniary damage to this
respondent.
While the corporate owners Of that
tract of land have their own schemes of
profit in the disposal of their hundreds of
| ffty-vara lots, in their own way, 30 has
this respondent his own schemes of profit
in the management and disposal of his
own real property, in his own way. 1t is
not the province of other people to Judge
of this respondents plans or methods in
regard to his own use of his own prop
erty. 1t is enough that he presents this,
his unqualified protest, insisting that the
actual pecuniary damage to this respond
ent would be twenty times more than this
board would be justified in awarding for
the simple right of way. For rough
estimate of damages, reference is here
made to this respondents protest in this
proceeding, fled about the 4th OF
March last. B. BALLRRINo,
Respondent.
The National Club.
In spite of hot weather and the fact
bot opu anand tba;r -osI