The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1892-02-22
WHO owns THE CITY,

twas lately observed that at the rate
tainEs were progressing lie bulk Of the lots
in the outlying portions Of the city would
fail into the possession Of the paving COM
raules. Tie charges eXacted for laying the
uQuitice pavement are So exorbitant that
the lot-oVuers are unable to pay them, aud
sooner ov later tie mortgage which the pay
ing company acquires on the lots through
me mere order Of the Street Superintend-
emit viii be foreclosed and the property Will
change hands. Quite a considerable pro
norton If tie two miles Of pavement for
which tie Street Department IS now giving
aut contracts runs through UnimpT0ved
t-actS. Of which tie value is uncertain.
Tie p5ultce pavement and granite curbing
costs so large a proportion Of the value Of
the lots thai q savinE>-bank would not al
vance money enough to meet the bills on
mortgage on tie lots. and the debt must be
collected by process Of foreclosure and sale.
There is a case in the Western Addition
Ubere q widow was improved ont Of all the
Ir,ptity her husband eft her by the fat Of
the Street Department and the Street Com
.L..tle5 Of Tie Board # Supervisors.
Il is easy TO understand ny these paving
companies. whose stockholders are chiefly
city IC.tc5ans, should stir heaven and
earth t. set contracts for laying payements,
ana Why tie Street Superintendent should
fec. bound to provide work for his bench
men al tie cost Of property owners. Bu-
il may perhaps be a question whether these
parties ID -ieir greed have not in this case
CyeIslut their mark. In q case where the
Street Department has ordered the paving
Of d block in defiance Of the protest Of every
resident Of the street on both sides, courts
viii be Gp. 20 sCTutniZe very closely an at
tempt to enforce an alleged mortgage Gre
ated by 50 L.gh-Landed proceeding. If
there is any lo0pLoie by which an escape
can lie found from the foreclosure Of such
& mortgage Il IS likely TO be discovered.
As q general principle Of law no one can
ucItcsge property but the owner. As in
practice This principle stood in the way Of
tie Improvement Of streets II was provided
by tie Erooman act that where a minority
Cf I0t-oHueIs stood out against a majority,
and resisted necessary improvements, the
viii Of tie majority should govern. and that
pr0p0-ti0nate share OF the cost Of the i'm
movements should become al IncUmbrance
On tie property Of l0t-OWners who had not
asseuted to them. This was at best very
doubtful law. Il is quite questionable
whether it c0nf0rmed TO the fundamental
principles Of Jurisprudence. But, whether
nine property have or have lot the
right to place an incumbTauce on the prop
city Of a tenth, without his viii and against
bis protest, ij would seem to he clear that
III .rd paTty-oT city Oficial-canuOt lncum-
Der tile property Of tie whole ten without
their assent. Ct the assent OF any one Of
them, AID IN defiance Of the protest Of all.
There would be a manifest want Of equity
in such al arrangement. Neither tie Street
Superintendent nor the Street Committee
has any interest in the lots which they are
low attempting to incumber in order to
provide work for tie paving companies;
the lot-0WEeEs have not ordered the pave
ment LAID. LCr assented to the laying; will
court hold that the act Of tie municipal
officials bound these parties and their prop
eIty when they distinctly refused to assent
10 il? Can properly lie mortgaged in this
way? II So titles to real estate in this city
are at the mercy Of the City Hall.
Corporations and mOnoDUlists often come
to grief by attempting too much. If one Of
the lot-owners whom the paving companies
are now attempting 10 desp0il with the aid
q the Street Department and the Street
Committee should resist payment Of the
paving bin and carry the case up TO the
higher courts on the ground that the pre-
tended mortgage created By the act Of paw
ing IS no mortgage at all, and that he is not
bound to pay for an Improvement which he
did not order and did not need, the example
would be followed by all others in the like
case, and tie decision might be c0ufOrmabe
TO equity and common sense. That would
break the paving companies, and would in
volye the city officials in suits for damages,
OF hlch they might not live to see the end.
It is not unlikely that this course will be
pursued. If the Street Department had
coutented itself with ordering Improvements
which were demanded by a majority Of those
who we're to be benefited the law might
have escaped scrutiny. Bat now that it is be-
coming a question whether tie paving COM
panies OF the buyers ef lots are to own
them, it must he expected that the latter
VIII not surrender without a struggle.