Los Angeles herald., 1891-03-09
ABOUT STREETS.
SOME OF THE WAYS THE COUNCIL
HAS HAD WORK DONE.
A Review of the Records by One Who
Claims to Know = Some Interesting
Points for Lawyers and Landowners.

Points for Lawyers and Landowners.
EprroRs HERALD: Now that the legis-
lature has passed the bill allowing cities
to issue bonds for the improvement of
streets, and as the same will probably
be signed by the governor, it will be
well for the city council to call halt
as to some OF the ways in which they
have ordered work done, or which they
have approved for years past.
In 1S40 the survey made by Ord was
adopted, by which the blocks, as laid
out by him, we're fixed with certain
exceptions) at $50 by 900 feet. Also see
resurvey made by Seebold of portion
thereof in 1868, as the same appears Of
record 81 M r.. 40. Also see map of
Puebla de Los Angeles adopted in 1853
Ord and Hancock's SURVEYS bear certain,
courses from the old church fronting on
the Plaza. In 1869 these courses and
distances had been 80 changed that
Frank Lecouvreur states (city archives
74) that there lis an entire want of
system" in the manner Of surveys made
in the city.
This want of system has never been
rectified, but as time has elapsed has
been still more confused by the acts OF
both the city engineers and the city
councils, by adopting various maps that
were not constructed with relation to
anything but the matter Immediately in
view.
/ shall con6ne my remarks to the Ord
survey, though they would apply to
Hancock's survey and the various sub
divisions thereof with greater discrep-
ancies to be disclosed as the tracts were
larger.
Remember, an Ord block was 33Ox60O
feet, and to that extent only did the city
give title originally. The streets run
ming northeasterly were 80 fest and the
cross streets go feet in width We End
on the ground that today these blocks
have increased in length from feet to
20 feet, and also have expanded later
ally, Why is this? Is it due to our
wonderful soil or climate?
1t is due to the surveyors taking for
initial points, not the actual corners OF
the block, but the corner OF some fence
which they assumed to be properly To-
Gated. Another result is that streets.
instead of running between parallel
lines, vary their direction with almost
every block. (See city engineers street
center map.)
The council has adopted and approv-
ed, for various purposes, differing maps,
and thus caused confusion that has al
ready resulted in litigation, and which
Will probably cause much more when
the property becomes more valuable
ana people insist upon getting proper
abstracts lnot certificates) of title to the
land itself. and not of the supposed
owner of the land.
One case that / recall was that of
three maps adopted within eighteen
months of each other by the council. on
certain street of this city, and no two
OF the maps agreed as to the distances
from center to center of cross streets.
and as the width of the streets was not
changed it gave new location for each
block. and eones1saontl.- rof each owner
OF frontage in the same. - &. I. I. \, /. -
The consequences are:
Flrst-That many people have now in
actual possession portion of the streets.
Second-That in many cases the
streets have been showed over on pri-
vate property without due condemna-
ton.
Third-That the people deriving title
by certain description, and being tax
ed as for their record title, but having
gone into differently located lot, it
leaves them only the statute of limita-
tions to depend upon.
Fourth-Did the statute OF limitations
prevent the city from recovering por-
tion of Second street from Mills in O
title deraigned from the city itself in
1854? Was it a successful defense in
the cases OF city vs. Galpin? or city VS..
Dol?
Fifth-If after the city issues bonds
to improve a street, will they not find
themselves compelled by property-own-
ers to change the lines of their proposed
improvements to correspond with the
lines OF the street as actually dedicated?
See case OF Fort street, where nearly or
quite one-half of the assessment for
opening the same is to be given to those
IN possession of portion of street
dedicated in 1849. Will these people
agree to make a gift Of $50, 600 when
the land already belongs to the city?
THE REMEDY.
Before the city goes to issuing bonds
or making further improvements of that
nature they should first establish the
lines on the ground with reference to
the original corners of the blocks and
not TO 1ehce corners, and then take
proper proceedings to acquire the title
to that they now have in possession, but
the title to which they parted with long
since. Then, in view of the above de-
cisions, either give the present occu-
pants title to those portions of the
streets they claim, or use their rights,
eject them and thus increase the width
of the streets.
Should any one blame you for pub
iishing anything that might disturb
titles, recollect that it is the records
they depend on for their titles, and if
the records show the above facts, then
1T is time to take steps to correct our
records. Had the advice of Lecouvreur
been taken in 1869 it would not have
been necessary to write the above.
:. J. II. MEnyIL.