The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1895-11-14
A FORMAL PROTEST FILED
The Darcy Sewer Is Now Before
the Council
ALWAYS WAS COMPLAINT
Some Reasons for Not Accepting the
Work
A Lengthy Petition Which Furnishes Big
ALWAYS WAS COMPLAINT
Bill Of Particulars - What the
City Engineer Thinks

Louis Gottschnlk and others OF tho
largest Of the property owners affected,
have finally filed formal protest against
the acceptance by the city of the work
IN what is known as sewer district No. 8.
The job is one of the largest ever done in
the city and the protest. owing to the in
terests involved, 10 herewith printed in
full, a. follows:
We, the undersigned property owners in
what il known as sewer district No. 3, as
established by ordinances 2177 and 224S
and assessed for the construction OF the
same, hereby give notice that thew appeal
from the action Of the superintendent of
streets in accepting said sewer and in
making the assessment for the construc-
tion thereof and in issuing warrant fol
the payment of such assessments. And
they base their appeal upon the following
grounds:
That tho city council never obtairsd
Jurisdiction by posting and publication as
required by law of the said ordinances
and OF the notices required.
That they excluded in said ordinances
certain pieces OF property benefited by
did not include all the property which
by law should have been assessed for the
construction thereof.
That the council by its ordinances or
by the contract or by the specifications
did not sufficiently and definitely de.
aid no sufficiently specify the size Of the
different parts Of the sewer, nor the ma.
terial with which the same was to be con-
str acted, nor the depth at whicb.it was to
be laid. nor the exoa vations required, nor
the manner in which the foundations
we're to be built, nor the manner Of con-
struction, but left il to the discretion of
the contractors, the street superintendent,
city engineer or other parties and dele
gated its authority to other parties in
that respect. nor did it provide any out
let or connection to or with any uther
sewer.
That said sewer was not built according
to the contract, plans or specifications or
according to said ordinances in this, That
inferior aterial was used than that pre-
scribed: that the several parts OF said
sewer were not made OF the prescribed
size nor the joints or foundations laid In
cement or properly secured.
That the plan for the construction of
the sewer is entirely faulty and the sewer
Is and will be OF no benefit to the prop
erty owners as it Is laid deeper than any
connecting sewer that might bs built
hereafter, and that there fore this sewer
would not carry off the sewage but would
only create a cesspool and q nuisance in
the streets.
That SAID sewer has not yet been COM
pleted and is not in condition that IL
can be used, inasmuch that it has not
outlet or any connection with any other
sewer.
That said sewer was wrongfully
accepted by the Street Superintend-
snt before its completion and be-
fore 1t was in condition that 1t
could be used or could be of any benefit
to the properly owners in the said dis
trict and before 1t was tested or tried or
before 1t could be tested; that 1T was not
flushed or any water run through it and
that this could not be a bne because it
has no connection with any other sewer
or outlst. That the law in permitting
property to be assessed for tho construc
ton of the sewer proceeds upon tine the
ory that the property IS especially bene-
flied by said sewer and should therefore
pay for such special benefit. but that
iI this case the property derives no ben
eft from tina : sewer at this time at any
rate because il has no outlst and because
no connection from the property is per-
mitted to be made to sucn sewer.
That until said sewer is IN condition
to be used by the property owners and IN
such n condition that it will carry off the
sewage in said district without il becom-
ing stagnant in raid sewer, the superin-
tenden of streets could not legally have
issued warrant to make the property
owners nay for the benefit which they
had not and cannot as yet receive or de-
rive, and the making OF said assessment
and the issuing of said warrant was en-
tirely unauthorized by law and Is illegal
and void.
: The assessments made by the said
street superintendent upon the different
pieces of property are not made upon
the proper theory of making each lot pay
in proportion to the benefit il derives
from the construction OF the sewer. but
by the front foot and according to the
- -k~ -.
dent, ana that therefore the said assess
mept is unequitaDle and unjust, espec-
tally as it leaves out a large amount "
property which should have been assessed
and inciudes some property which should
not have been assessed.
That said sewer is neither on the line
or grade as prescribed by the specitica-
lions and profile that the assessment
was made and warrant issued without a
proper certificate OF the engineer author
izing the same.
Tit said sewer in part runs through
private property contrary to law, and
therefore its use can be prohibited at any
time.
Wherefore your petitioners respectfully
pray that the acceptance of said sewer
may be set aside and annulled, the assess
ment also set aside and declared illegal.
and the warrant issued recalled and an.
nulleu.
City Engineer Compton said yesterday
that rvery portion Of the sewer had been
infinitely examined before the work had
been accepted. and about $4,000 worth of
repairs was added by Contractor Darcy
under pressure. The sewer was com plet.
cd several months ago and was accepted
about one month ago. There has always
been dissatisfaction against the work by
the property owners, who will now hve
an opportunity to formally present their
claims in open council. City Engineer
Compton says that the sewer is now in
all respects according to the contract and
the PUBLICATIONS.
cANrA Ep pxcIIncI0A