The San Francisco call., 1896-03-17

The area of this is sufficiently large te
make suitable park. The opinions O.
some of the many residents in favor O.
this plan is here given:
John d. Daley of 900 Guerrero street,
well known as an active citizen, said
why should we not have both high
school and a park? We have been paying
taxes all our lives for the benefit of other
people and we of the Mission have got
paratively nothing in return. The
taxes this year will be the same as those
of last year. Well, all right, what of iti
Suppose the taxes are little high. the
people get the benefit of it in the end. We
do not want to live in adobe houses all
our lives. We want good modern houses,
good plumbing. good sewers, good streets,
the best of schools for our children and
suitable parks for breathing places and
recreation. What do we live for if not to
enjoy health and happiness for ourselves
and secure the same blessings for our
families and neighbors Let us have the
park by all means"
These sentiments were fully indorsed by
]. II. Roy, who resides on the San Bruno
road, J. L. Vermeil of 2651 Howard
street, F. H. Johnson of Fifteenth avenue,
on San Bruno road, and H. A. Clifford OF
Bacon and Harvard streets.
Judge Van Reynegom, who was the
first to propose the removal of the GENE
teries from the Mission some ten years
ago, is heartily in sympathy with the
present movement. He said:
II know OF no place in the City any
better adapted for park than that now
mentioned. It's contour could not be sur
passed. 1t is centrally located and well
protected from the westerly winds and
fogs. The sun shines in that little valley
when the other portions OF the City are
enshrouded with fog. AS regards the ex-
pense, that is nothing when compared
with the benefits to be derived from it as
park. And again, this park will not be for
day or year-it will be for all time to
come.
GAS it is now the Mission people have
no public parks. There Is little patch OF
land measuring $40 feet by 245 feet down
on Harrison and Treat avenue designated
public park that is not improved or
beautified, and to find it would REQUIRE q
guide or a map of the City.
SAT the time that started the removal
of the bodies from the cemeteries out there
[ was opposed on all sides, but by reason
ing and arguments l convinced those op-
posed to me, and now am thanked on all
sides for the stand | then took. am now
in favor of the City buying the ground and
making an elegant park out of it,
John H. Grady, a real estate agent who
tSSiNSo az wv W WSieJ t1iiiu "a cbiCCb3 diiN WIZ
is president of the association now advo-
eating the high school question. said
when spoken to on the park question:
why. of course I am in favor of it.
We have right to claim it. Let US see
whether the Mission people are entitled to
park and high school or not.
1.-The assessed valuation of property
between Market and Twenty-sixth streets
is S96 100000. On that there is paid in
taxes $1,000, 600; expended in improve
ments on the same section $45, 900 yearly.
Eh! How is that for fair play? Now
don't you think that we have done our
share in beautifying and improving the
City for our neighbors. 1t would be no
more than right that our neighbors should
let us have some OF our own money back
for improving our section.
Looking at it from conservative point
OF view I think the two blocks mentioned
can be bought for $100, 900 each or 500, 600
for both. The land is considera bly, under
grade. and inasmuch as it has been used
as q cemetery might not be as desirable