Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-03-24
COMPLAINT TO THE MAYOR
Against an Alley Vacation by the
Majority Of Property Owners,
BOTH IN INTEREST AND NUMBER.
Strong Allegations Made by the Indig-
nant Remonstrants.
GOURLEY MAKING AN INVESTIGATION

What appears to be q fragrant violation Of
the new street law has been pcrpetrated by
the City Councils, and unless the Mayor
takes hand and applies remedy there will
be an excellent opening for suit against
the city which the city will have to pay for.
The only remedy will be tho veto, and it
will have to bs sustained by those who
made it necessary to make 1t effective.
At the last meeting of Councils there
was passed an ordinance vacating Arm
strong alley, Twenty-6rst ward, from Fifth
avenue to Lincoln avenue. The ordinance
had been presented in Common Council and
was passed in both branches without dis
senting vote. No attention had been paid
to it until yesterday q remonstrance was
presented to the Mayox which brought the
facts in the case to the surface. The only
signers to the paper petitioning for the va
cation were Anna NJ. Bradley and Alice
Heppenstall, wives of John Bradley and
George Heppenstall, respectively. and their
properties front on Lincoln avenue, each
abutting 12O feet on Armstrong alley, which
divides them at that point.
Quite a Valuable Acquisition.
The alley is 20 feet wide and its vacation,
under the law, would give them each . TO-
foot strip of land, fronting on Lincoln ave-
nue. and 120 feet deep As land in that
section is worth about SIS per front foot, the
value Of such an acquisition is apparent.
George Finley, welLknown East End
citizen, presented the remonstrance to
Mayor Gourley, and from his statement 1t
appears the petition for the vacation had
never been presented for signatures to the
other property holders interested. The
petition as it was presented to Councils
recites that "a majority of property owners
in interest and number abutting ON Arm
strong alley" desired the vacation, but it
appears from the remonstrance that the
petitioners were largely in the minority,
both as to number and interest The two
petitioners represent only 240 feet in inter-
est, whereas the remonstrants number II,
and their interested property 1876 feet.
The remonstrants were Robert Gumbert,
Thomas Armstrong, ]. A. Munson, j. E
Schoonmaker, s. w. Hill, each 40 feet,
George Finley 800. w. F. Aull 100, Camp
bell & Dick 14O, Alex. Liddell 81, T. D.
Carnahan 80 and W. J. Neeley 80 feet.
Injury to Other Property Owners.
The remonstrants claim the vacation
would work great injury to their property,
shutting them out from communication with
Lincoln avenue by an alley that has been
open and used for travel for 40 years, and
they claim there is no possible need for car
rying out the purpose of the ordinance,
aside from the fact that it is positive vio-
latiop of the new street act
Mayor Gourley has taken the case into
consideration and is investigating it closely.
From the information he has thus far Sc
cured he is greatly opposed to the ordi-
nance, and if he finds it necessary to e1er-
else the veto power it is highly probable
that Councils. will hear something in a Wig
orous vein about passing ordinances which
they failed to investigate and don't under
stand