Los Angeles herald., 1892-05-28
WHERE IS THE MONEY?
The Council Appropriation for
the Workman Park.
Clerk Teed Omitted q Little Five
Thousand Dollar Item.
A Queer Condition Of Things in tho Park
Commission-JudEs vaFiel's Able
Argument-The Money Was
Appropriated.

At yesterdays meeting Of the park
commissioners, the Workman Hollen-
beck park was the chief subject dis
cussed. The remarks made seemed to
show that the commission has wrong
fully expended Tbs money appropriated
for certain parks, on others.
A delegation Of Boyle Heights people
was present, headed by Judge variel,
who asked why work had not been COM
menced on the Workman park.
President Hubbell answered that
there was no money left for that pur-
pose; that he favored spending the
money if the council would give it.
Mr.. Rees contended, and, as the rec
ords show, rightfully, that the council
had made a specific appropriation for
this park.
\ A complaint from the council about
the Sixth-street park sidewalk and the
condition Of Westlake park was referred
to the superintendent.
Judge Variel. whose only interest in
the matter is that of being resident Of
Boyle Heights, made strong argument
before the commission, from which the
following extracts are taken;
GENTLEMEN: Learning from member
of your honorable board that there was
some question raised as to the sufficiencv
OF the evidence before you to establish
that the honorable city council of the
city of Los Angeles had provided the
sum Of $4,000 to be expended by You
in performance of the condition
imposed by ex-Mayor Workman and
Mrs. Elizabeth Hollenbeck, in their
recent grant OF lands on Boyle Heights,
for park purposes, during this present
year, have procured portion of the
finance committees report, made August
81, 1891, also memorandum from the
records of the council under date of jan
nary 25, 1892, together with copy OF q
letter under date of January 27, 1892,
addressed to you by the city clerk, all
relating to the above park matter.
These papers are inclosed herewith
and are numbered l, 2 and 8, respective
ly. By reference to them it will be
seen that, through clerical omission in
the letter of January q, 1892, addressed
to you by the city clerk, no mention
was made of the $1,000 as having been
provided or apportioned by the council
to be expended by you upon the Hollen-
beck Workman park, in performance of
the conditions contained in the deed
and accepted by the council.
This omission I find entirely iustifes
the statement made to me by member
of your board relating to the matter,
stated in the opening paragraph of this
letter. Upon looking over the records
the clerical omission was discovered,
and Mr.. iced thereupon promptly pre-
pared another copy Of the said letter and
attached thereto note fully explanatory
of the omission, and you will find the
same inclosed herewith.
So that / submit to your board, there
can be no longer any question:
(a.) That the honorable city council
has accepted the deeds OF the
lands for park purposes, and under
taken to perform the conditions imposed
therein.
(b.) That in pursuance of that under
taking they have provided the sum of
5000 to be expended upon. the Hollen-
beck-Workman park, during the current
year, in performance of that condition.
(c.) That they have apportioned
such an amount to the fund set apart
subject to your order, and have officielly
requested you to perform the first condi-
ton under which the said deed was
accepted. l hope the inclosed docu-
ments may remove the doubts az to
your financial power, supposed to be
hitherto existing, and that you may no
longer see any objection to performing
the condition imposed upon the city
under the Hollenbeck- Workman deed,
namely: The expenditure of $4,000
upon the lands granted in said deeds,
during the current year.
/ have also been informed that the
point has been made before or to you
that you had not the legal authority or
power to expend these moneys provided
by the council in the improvement of
this Hollenbeck- Workman park; and I
am informed that it is claimed that your
power to expend moneys on parks is
limited to those parks only which are
already regularly laid out and accepted,
and are within your control as such.
And I am further informed that it is
claimed that this park in question
would not be public park until SIC, 900
was expended on it.
And that consequently it is argued, as
above stated, that you have no power to
expend any money upon it all.
Will you permit me (not as an attor-
ney for anybody in interest, but only in
nv own behalf and in that OF fellow
citizens) to submit to you what in my
own view, is complete answer to the
above argument?
The city of Los Angeles is q public
municipal corporation, whose duty it ia
to provide among other necessities, pub
lie parks for its inhabitants.
That by virtue Of its inherent power
as q municipality, as well as by the
express statutory law OF this state, the
city may acquire lands for parks by do.
nation or purchase, and for the acquisi.
ton of such lands may even exercise
the power of eminent domain. (See the
act Of March 10th, 1880, statutes OF 49,
In the case in question the purchase
price is $4,000 to be paid, not to the
grantors of the land, but in expendi.
lures in the improvement of those lands
for park purposes, one-half within the
year 1892, and the other within the yeal
1898.
Il cannot be contended that this parh
is not under your control nor under your
power.