Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-08-05


Making 11.520 feet frontage, at 81 SO per
front foot, the property-owners paying
So 20, and the city, 81 %.
According to this showing, the city will
be obliged TO pay about 81 cents and the
property. owners 81 81 per front foot extra
for asphalt pavement, in excess of what a
gravel pavement would cost or, for twelve
blocks, the city would be obliged to pay
So 451, and the property owners $40 ,507,
over and above the cost of a gravel pave
ment.
The owner of 40-foot lot would pay an
additional amount of only SOL 60.
The asphalt pavement will be composed
of 81 inches of asphalt concrete, having at
least three times the tensile strength of
Portland cement concrete, and on top of that
will be II inches of asphalt surface dressing.
The heaviest teams in Sacramento can run
over it without injuring it in the least, and
the suns heat will not affect it. The COM
pany will give bond to keep the street in
repair for five years, turning it over to the
city authorities at the end of that time in
perfect condition.
l. Buffalo, Il. Y, asphalt streets cost SO ]
cents per square foot, and in San Francisco
% to 80 cents. Ventura asphalt is infinitely
preferable to the material used in either of
those cities, and is cheaper. While ma
iority of the property-owners in the twelve
blocks are in favor of asphalt, some of
them do not wish to sign petition to have
it ordered TO asphalt, for reasons of their
own. They favor it, but do not wish to
offend any of their less progressive neigh
hors.
I'VE are here said Mr.. Smith, "to give
you good streets, and desire some encour-
agement from the city authorities, without
= ~,-sl1 ha oil ipo,nOccfhla for
to do any business. The use of our ma
terial is not an experiment by any means,
having been used extensively, and we have
but lately taken large contract with the
Leland Stanford Jr. University, Mr.. STAN
ford giving Us the contract only after q
thorough and exhaustive examination OF
all pavement material by his experts and
engineers. Our material received their
unanimous approval"
Mr.. Mclaughlin asked Mr.. Smith if he
would guarantee the road.
The latter said he was prepared to do so
and would give bond for five years. He
was satisfied that it would not cost him
more than 5000 to keep the street in per
feet repair. All the property-owners whom
he had consulted on the subject were in
favor of it.
B. U. Steinman, G. NJ. Mott, B. Leonard
J. NJ. Milliken and other property owners
were present aud urged the Board to favor
the project.
Mr.. Mclaughlin objected TO the CITY
having TO pay one-fourth of the expense
Mr.. Milliken said it would he no evi
dence of generosity on the part of the Trus
tees to do this. The taxpayers put up tht
money, and did SO willingly. They ar
the ones whose wishes should be con
suited.
Mr. Mclaughlin said that the way TO d.
would be to have majority otthe propert!
owners sign a petition TO the Board for as
phalt.
1t was explained that many ofthe property
owners in favor of the asphalt did not, for
certain reasons, want to sign petition.
Mr.. Luhrs said that the only way for tn
Board of Trustees to do was to g,
ahead and order improvements no matte
whether or not few old fogies oppos
improvement and progress. There haC
been too much hanging back in the past
and the city was suffering by it.
Mr.. Mclaughlin said that the worl
should not be ordered by the Board, Will
he is Street Commissioner without a peti
ton therefor.
MIR. Leonard said he would like to know
whether or not Trustee Mclaughlin wa
running the City Board of Trustees. Their
are two other members of the Board, ant
possibly they might be in favor Of progress
and improvement.
Mr.. Mclaughlin replied, testify, that h
knew his business, and could not b.
swerved in his purpose.
Some rather warm words passed between
Trustee Mclaughlin on the one hand ant
Messrs. Luhrs and Leonard on the other
at the conclusion of which Mr.. Mott asket
If il would be satisfactory to the Stree
Commissioner If assured that majority o
the property-owners on l street would no
protest against the proposed improvement
While no direct promise was given Il
that effect, Mr.. Mclaughlin intimated tina
be might favor the project if proof wer
furnished that msiority of the property
owners showed that they wanted it.
This Mr.. Smith said he would present q
the next meeting Of the Board.
Owing 10 the absence of Trustee VOL
the matter was laid over for final actio
until navf Mnn1Qv