Los Angeles herald., 1892-03-15
could be compelled to abate the sam
11radar tho atafo la Eilod

under the state law. Filed.
In the matter of squatters upon city
land you have instructed me to ascer-
tain the locality of all city lands and to
demand rent from parties occupying the
same. I have been endeavoring for
three years to obtain map showing the
city lands, and have failed. Until l
obtain such map have no means of
knowing what are or what are not city
lands. would again suggest that the
city engineer prepare such map. City
engineer instructed to ascertain the cost
| of map from some abstract company.
AS directed I have prepared and pre-.
sent an ordinance for the extension of
| Lucas avenue between Seventh and Or
age streets. Passed.
In regard to the notice served on the
council by j. f. Crank, receiver of the
Pacific Railway company, requesting
that all improvements to be made upon
Pearl and Figueroa streets in the way of
paving be made by the city of Los An
geIes and that bonds be issued for the
payment as provided by law; must
confess am in considerable doubt as to
what is meant by this request.
On January %, 1892, the council
passed an ordinance directing the COM
pany to pave between it's tracks and for
two feet on each side with bituminous
lime rock, from Pico street to Washing
ton street. This ordinance was served
upon the company on February Sd, a
few days after which the receiver Pc
tltioned the superior court, reciting
tina the Pacific Railway company was the
lessee of all the interest of the
City Railway company in q
| franchise for street railway
which covered Main, First, Spring,
Fifth, Olive, Twelfth, Pearl and Figueroa
streets; that the company had been or
dered to pave on Figueroa street as
above stated, and asking permission to
be allowed to abandon to the city of Los
Angeles all interest which the railway
company had in that portion of the fran
chise west of Sixth street (Which in
cludes Figueroa street), and also asking
to be allowed to remove the tracks on
Olive south of Sixth and on Twelfth to
Pearl, which petition was granted by
the court on an ex parte motion, and on
the same day the receiver was instructed
to give the city council the notice above
referred to. On reading this notice I
was of the opinion that the company
intended to abandon all of it's rights
upon Figueroa street, between Pico and
| d6uIuStUu, duu Cohe0 IuuuiuR ChIb
thereon, but / have since discovered
originally granted to J. s.. Griffin for
| this same street, and that they propose
to run their cars by virtue thereof. Just
why it became necessary to surrender to
the city its interest in the lease of the
aforementioned franchise Immediately
after being notified to pave, I cannot
| understand, but it was certainly not for
the purpose of facilitating or simplify
ing the proceedings to compel the COM
pany to pave. It will be observed that
it is only proposed to abandon to the
city its interest in the lease of a fran
chise. What becomes of the other
portion Of the franchise? Does the
company expect the cost of any
| portion of the work to be as
sessed against the interest which the
original grantor has in the franchise ?
The company also surrenders its inter-
est in the franchise to the city and asks
that the city have the work of paving
performed by the city and bonds issued
as provided by law. Bonds on what ?
City bonds or bonds on the franchise
surrendered to the city? Section 43 of
the Vrooman act provides that after the
council has ordered work done on q
street, 1T may order the company or
person having railroad tracks thereon
to pave, etc., and among other pro-
visions, that the company or person
may, within fifteen days after receiving
such notice, assume the performance Of
the work, or request the council to have
such work or improvement performed
for and at the expense OF such person or
company, and that the council
may pass an ordinance of intention to
have the work performed and bonds
issued which would be lien upon that
portion of the franchise and tracks along
which said work has been done. There
is no provision that the company can re-
quest that the improvements be made
by the city, and as it has not requested
that they be made at the expense of the
company, it has not complied with the
requirements of the act, and is not en-
titled to it's benef 8. I have not made
these technical objections for the pur-
pose of being captious or hypercritical,
but to show what complications will
arise in case we attempt to issue bonds.
The cost of this paving will amount to a
considerable sum of money, and in view
of all the facts l doubt if any contractor
could be found who would do the work
and take bonds on portion of the