Kansas City daily journal., 1895-06-15
BOULEVARD SIDEWALKS,
OLD MATERIAL BELONGS TO rHE
ABurrtNG PROPERTY OWNERS.
When Removed by the Park Board II Does
Not become the Property OF the
District-Jity Counselor Me-
Douglas opinion.

Ever since the decision in the boulevard
case, property owners on Independence
boulevard have been asking questions re-
garding the disposition of the old sidewalk
materials The board Of park commits
sioners directed the owners to clear the
ten foot strip on both sides in order that
the improvements might go on. What dis
position was to be made OF the sidewalks
was not determined upon, but the law Of
the case was referred to the city counselor
Yesterday Judge McDougal filed his writ
ten opinion on the questions involved with
the secretary of the board. He holds that
the materials belong TO the abutting prop
erty owners. under certain conditions. The
opinion Is as follows:
ITO the Honorable The Board OF Park
Commissioners.
"Gentlemen:-In your recent inquiry as
TO ownership of sidewalks ana curbing
now on the streets and parts Of streets
widened by ordinance in establishing In
dependence avenue boulevard you say:
In consideration Of the fact that curb
ing and sidewalks had already been put
down at the property owners expense and
were fairly satisfactory for the usual
street but not so for boulevard purposes,
the board determined to replace these I'M
provements with uniform and better ones,
and in accordance with its plans, at the
expense of the North Park district, out Gf
funds arising from an assessment Tor park
and boulevard purposes in that district.
"' The question arising in connection
with the construction of the new sidewalks
is that of ownership of the old sidewalks.
DO they belong to the park district; and
when they. are, replaced by Others shall the
board make disposition of them? or do
they remain the property of the owners of
the abuttng lands?
IN the event that you should deter
mine them to belong to the property own
ers and some owners should not remove
them before the new walks are being laid.
then what disposition shall be made Of
them? Again should the owners attempt
to remove them before the board notifies
them TO do so. In what manner can they
be restrained from doing so?'
For answer TO your first inquiry. in
the light of the facts stated. ! have to to
say: That sidewalks paid for by owners
of abutting property and which under the
plans and specifications of your, board,
Judgment, upon being seyered and re.
moved from their present foundations. at
nee become n the pr9pery OF the InuftnE 10 frnn
of whose premises such walk was laid. as
soon as the same is severed from It's foun-
a new sidewalk under the direction of your
board, may. at pleasure. take possession
Forming % f the old sidewalk. Is M This HS' is the the
rule OF law deducted from somewhat
careful examination of the, statutes and
decisions of this state and other states
having similar laws governing this Sub
ject.
For answer to your second question
If the owner. upon request so to do. shall
fail or refuse to take and remove the ma
terials composing the old sidewalk. then
in my Judgment the city may safely treat
such materials as 1t does old wornout
blocks and other materials in streets that
are being repaved, and appropriate such
materials to its own use. Public work
should not be delayed by the failure or
refusal of the individual to claim his own.
For answer to your third inquiry: Any
attempt to remove the present sidewalk
before the board is ready to have the same
removed, may be restrained by injunc-
tion. Such owner would also be liable in a
civil decision for any damage sustained by
the actual removal of the walk and in adj
dition to this, under sections 1884 and lGiS
of the Revised Ordinances, would be gull
ty of misdemeanor and liable to a line
of not exceeding five hundred dollars. Re
spectfully submitted,
II. C. TDOUGAL,
"City Counselor"