Los Angeles herald., 1891-08-10
BEGGING THE QUESTION.

The Times takes up great deal OF
of space to reiterate it's desire to have
great, unsightly gaps cut through the
hills, and, as usual, evades the issue.
To the HBRADD's perfectly valid argu-
ments that Fort hill should be respected
as a landmark, that the natural contours
of the hills should be preserved, and
jobbery kept from defacing them, our
contemporary opposes a very volumin-
GUS begging of the question. We have
stated with irrefragable force that to
hack up Fort hill would be vandalism
that could only be excused by the greed
of contractor added to that of land
speculator; and we intimated, in a
courtly way, that the present location
OF the Times Office probably explained
the zeal of that journal in leading the
attack on the hills. To the latter point
the Times says that any property owner
on Broadway has right to agitate for
the opening of that thoroughfare, and the
mere fact that he is interested does not
deprive him of that right. This is true,
though there is question of tact in the
matter that our contemporary overlooks.
Its first article was altogether too frank.
Candor is charming thing in its place,
but it is sometimes injudicious. When
the Times advanced the horrifying
proposition that if Broadway did not
get big move on itself Spring street or
some other thoroughfare might become
the principal retail business street of
the future, it gave the game away very
transparently. There are quite num-
ber of other streets in Los Angeles, and
the mass of the property holders resid-
ing ON them may not think it worth
while to destroy a large amount
Of property on the hill, on which
many costly and beautiful edifices have
been erected, just to oblige the Times
or other ambitious property-owners on
that thoroughfare. They may conclude
| that the city council of Los Angeles was
not elected especially to engage in the
work of ripping up hills at one end of
Broadway and cutting through a settled
portion OF the city at the other. The
fact that, as presented by the Times
with great brazenness in its first article,
this must be done to handicap Spring
and other thoroughfares in what ought
to be fair struggle for business suprem-
acy; will not recomme nd it to many
citizens residing off of Broadway, and
there are probably some people ON that
-
would revolt against this spoliation.
Our contemporary is courteous enough
to call its views advocating, as it
thinks, the improvement of its own
property. progress, and the HERALD's
opposition to the scheme OF tearing
down the hills ga do-nothing- but-go-to to-
sleep p-programme. This is very judic-
ious on the Times's part, for precious
few disinterested citizens will take that
view of the matter. There is scarcely a
city in the United States that has not
been disfgured by the barbarian rip
ping up OF its hills. Noble eminences,
that should have been 'things of beauty
and joys forever" have been converted
into unsightly and comparatively value
less blotches and eye-sores. San Fran
cisco has suffered much from this sui
cidal policy, which has been finally
abandoned. AS opposed to the Times's
description OF the HERALD's attitude as
"a do nothing but go to sleep pro-
gramme" we might describe that of our
contemporary as "force-everything-
wn-way-programme," no matter
how the general interests OF the city
should fare.
There are two rights involved in this
matter. One is that OF the people on
the hills to preserve their lovely homes
from destruction. The other is that of
this community to see that Fort hill, a
commanding and attractive landmark,
should not be cut up into ugly fractions.
1t will require more than the interested
eagerness of our contemporary to over
ride such potent considerations.