Evening star., 1895-07-16
He Replies Officially to Prof. Riley's
Street Extension Letter.
THE CONNECTICUT AVENUE DISPUTE
The Question Of the Professors
Right to Protest Raised.
HOW LAND WAS DONATED

sion, replying to the communication of
Prof. c. v. Riley on the subject OF the
extension of Connecticut avenue, printed in
a recent issue of The Star. He calls his
letter, dated July Is. demurrer" rather
than a protest, as he favors the proposed
detection of the avenue and takes excep-
tions to Prof Riley's objections to that
plan. In the first place, he points out that
in his letter of protest Prof. Riley failed
to state that he was property owner
directly interested in the changes, and
suggests that maybe the reason for the
omission was that a straight extension of
the avenue would wipe two of his neigh
bors entirely out of existence and leave
his home property partially on the east
line of the street, which, Mr.. Winner ayers,
is a result most cherished by Prof. Riley.
He therefore objects to the admission of
Prof. Riley's protest by the commission.
He states that he is and will continue to
be an advocate of the DETECTED avenue,
and, while not opposing any of the propo-
sitions contained in the first section of The
map, he puts in his plea in behalf of the
commissioners plan for Connecticut ave-
nue.. He points out, with the aid of a dia-
gram, that the traight line avenue would
involve lands on its entire route to Bel
mont road controlled or owned by himself
and cointerested owners and by those in
accord with him, including his own resi-
dence. On the other hand, on the detected
line he has induced his associates to ded
the line of the Phelps tract subdivision
amounting to about $4,000 square feet of
most valuable property.
The Cost of Straight Extension.
On the basis of other lots in the same
tract that have been sold at an average of
about $3.50 foot. this item alone would
represent cost of about S125,OoO. The
houses that the straight line would destroy.
those of Messrs. Winner. Handy and Moses
and Miss Dorsey, are worth near $4,000.
The land from LIE Roy place to Califor-
MIA avenue" he continues, lat an average
of 81. 80 a foot. is worth not less than sG5,-
900: That from California avenue to Wy
oring avenue at $1.5o. not much less than
10000. That from Wyoming to kalorama
avenue, about $4,000. That from kalo-
rama to Belmont road, at an average of
81, or nearly that, say, $4,000; that below
belmont toward the creek say another
$4,000. This aggregates s445O0O, which,
taken together with the cost of cutting the
avenue through, possibly another $f"o,oan,
plus the money spent for the improveme ents
on Connecticut Avenue Heights, 70 be al
lotted to the debris heap, out of which SO
much was given to the public to insure
the detected avenue, about 100000, making
an aggregate expenditure of over 100000,
without the bridge. which must eventually
become necessary to make the avenue of
any use, means assuredly an expenditure
of over SI5oG0o. possibly near 81 600 900, to
carry out the scheme of an avenue which,
when accomplished. is shown from the
Commissioners plans, to be not farther al
the most remote point in its line than 123
feet and not on an average In its entire
length more distant than IS feet from the
detected line recommended to you for adop-
ton.
The Burden on the Owners.
THE foregoing represents the cost only
to the District. 1t is not possible to determine
at this epoch what the cost would be- out
OF private pockets, to those on the lines
either side of said avenue extended straight
to bring their properties down to the prop
er grades above the new cut grades, nor
could we tell how many years would elapse
pefore our properties on Washington
Heights would assume again a settled basis
Tor sales or homes / predict we would be
torn up for five or ten years, at least, and
that We might suffer in the meantime by
a diVertiug of those who would now come
10 10 us In our present attractive condition.
to other parts, from the effects of which
our people would likely not recover fully
in this generation"
The COMMISSIONER Power,
Mr.. Winner defends the Commissioners
right to defect the avenue, quoting the law
to sustain this proposition. He goes on to
say that the recommended route will not
cost as much as the straight line plan, the
ground to be taken costing not more than
one-half as much. the grading about one
half, ard there are no improvements in the
way to be paid for.
He intimates that Prof Riley's recent
published letter was an assault upon the
Commissioners for having approved the
subdivision at the head of Connecticut ave-
nue. for him. He goes into the history of
that tract and shows how in the spring of
1891 subdivision was applied for, but
official action was delayed because 1t did
not grant tract to the District for the
avenue. When the highway act of March
2, 1893, became law. another effort was
made. and the subdivision was approved
February q, 1884, on the basis Of de-
fected avenue and the owners granted to
the District $1,000 square feet for Connecti-
cut avenue.
The Necessity of Some Extension.
Seven or eight years ago." continued Mr.
Winner, "the necessity Of a Connecticut
avenue extended was urged upon the Com
missioners, and plan placed before them
for such extended avenue. With the most
strenuous and vigorous efforts on the part
of those advancing the same a number Of
public spirited owners of property were i'm
portuned to donate street fifty feet wide
with the condition that said Connecticut
avenue was to be extended to the Columbia
road. After these donations of valuable
property, to all intents and purposes ac-
cepted by the District authorities, being
plated and published and taxed upon as on
said avenue, the contributors waited vainly
for action evidencing ary intention Of car
rying this through to the point to which
they were Influenced to give the ground for
The present Commissioners have evolved
us from this suspense. in a happy solution
of this snarl, by their action in recon-
mending to you that avenue. which would
embrace this donated ground, at great
saving of cost for property and grading.
I stand ready, under instructions of the
owner, to dedicate her portion of this ave-
nue. as soon as it is finally determined, on
the lines 1 have suggested as promised
This Is in the line of property, fifty feet
wide, Just south of Presbrey's, which Mr.,
Riley states deed of dedication had been
made by the owner and was held in my
safe. He is just as far wrong in this asser-
ton as he is in many others which he
makes positively without assuring himself
of their correctness. He knows full we'll
that I have no power to close the streets
I have a power of attorney to convey this
property to the District, under conditions
imposed and Mr.. Riley knows me too we'll
to believe that 1 would do what he alleges
1 have threatened, except under the condi-
tions which I have noted above. My or
ders are from the owners.
Other Interests Involved.
"1 represent other interests, those of
clients, and number Of them. If 1t were
- f,.,r-