The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-06-28

Use OF streets ana Sidewalks. Inls order Will
restore the system OF doing street work by
private contract.
This association has, therefore, requested its
consulting engineer to investigate this subject
again and report upon this new order to your
honorable board. His report has just been re-
ceived, and as it states that the order recently
passed by your honorable board would be
illegal and contrary to the best interests OF
property-owners, we respectfully submit IL to
your consideration. We respectfully ask that
no further action be taken in executing this
recent ordinance until the matter has been
FULLY investigated, and II you find the conclu-
siOns OF our engineer correct that further
action be Indefinitely postponed upon said
order.
SAN FRANCISCO, June d, 1896.
To the Honorable the Board Of Directors Of the
Merchants association, San FTdnciScO-GENTLE-
MEN: In response to a request for a report on
the question OF private contracts and work
done under the proposed order OF the Boord OF
Supervisors, which was passed to print last
Monday have to submit The following:
Section OF part III OF the general street
laws of the State OF California, act OF 1885,
defines the Street superintendent as the per-
son who shall have charge of the streets, or
the improvements thereof, in any city. The
power is not conferred on him by statute TO
designate where work is necessary or should
be performed. The power to order street work
done is vested alone in the Board OF Super
visors or the City Council. The Street Super
lntendent can only order repairs
The courts have held that power to initiate
proceedings is vested only in the officials
designated Oy the Legislature ~ CAL, 404),
and that the power cannot be delegated by
such officials (35 Cal, 500, and also AZ Cal,
1866.
Power to improve streets does not dispense
with the passage and publication of q resolu-
ton of intention 90 Cal. 270), and in order TO
recover a street assessment the plaintiff must
show that all statutory requirements have
been fulfilled. az Cal 1856; cited AZ Cal.
45S, 604. Also see 50 Cal. 45
There are many other decisions in the same
line, but enough have been here given to show
that the order passed to print last Monday will
be void if passed by the board. When street.
work is ordered there mustfrst be a resolution
of intention passed, published and posted. 1t
etc, and the object OF all these proceedings
is 10 give the property-owner timely notice
and an opportunity TO be heard
Under the order now being discussed no
resolution of intention needs to be passed by
the board. and the superintendent of Streets
receives greater power than the board itself
possesses His order deprives the people of the
right OF protest, and the board must by law
hear protests and stop work for six months
upon receipt of q protest. In granting the
Street Superintendent greater power than it
possesses the board has passed an illegal order
and one against public interest.
The section mentioned reads as follows:
'sWheneVer the superintendent of Public
Streets, Highways and Squares shall deem it
necessary for the public good or convenience,
TO order the Improvement of the roadway or
sidewalks OF any public street, lane, alley
place or court in the City and County of San
francisco, not accepted by the City, or the re-
CONSERVATION or repair Of any sewer already
constructed therein, he shall serve notice in
writing upon the owners tenants or OCCUPANTS
of the lots or portions of lots fronting upon
sueh street. lane, alley, place or court upon or
in which the above-named Improvement re-
construction o. repair is required to be made
and the owner, tenant or occupant OF lots or
horizons of lots so notified as aforesaid shall
within five days after receiving such notice,
commence such improvement reconstruction
or repair, and prosecute the same diligently
until completion
IT is claimed that the order is essen tally the
same as section - Of the act OF 1885. If so,
there was no need of passing 1t to make such
section operative in San Francisco, as the act
is a general one and applies in all municipali-
ties in the State. But there is great differ
ence between the order and section - as the
Ia tier begins as follows: "W hen any portion OF
any street avenue, lane. alley, court or place
in said CITY improved, or any sidewalk con-
structed thereon shall be out OF repair or need
ing reconstruction and IN condition TO en-
danger persons or property passing thereon,
or in condition to interfere with the public
convenience in the use thereof, II shall be the
duty of the Superintendent OF streets 10 require
by notice in writing TO be delivered ETC., ETC."
This section provi deS for work to be done on
streets which have been improved but not ac-
cepted, and further, only provides for repairs.
No comment is needed. Under the law also,
as provided further on in the section the
Street Superin tendent must describ be fully the
character and amount OF work TO be done and
the materials and workmanship. On these
points the order is silent.
Subdivision of the order under discussion
provides for the granting of permits for pri-
Vate contracts, but neglects to mention specifi-
cations for the work or whether the work Will
be accepted by the board or any official.
Nv former report of November 1895 men,
toned the evils of private contracts as carried
out generally, so 1t is not necessary to mention
some features. 1t is well to say, however. that
unless the work is performed in accordance
with specitcat tons governing public work
that a great injustice is done taxpayers
Every man who pays for street work expects
to have the street accepted by the City, and it
is ONLY right that the City officials see to IT
and under their supervision. 1t is not right to
expect the taxpayers to maintain forever
streets which have not been properly con-
structed in the first place. This is q matter in
which every resident is interested.
A resolution (No. IA. 639) was passed last
Monday TO grant permits for private contracts
on certain streets. fthe permit was granted
and no provisions made for specifications or
acceptance by the City the property owners
should take care that they are not being in
jured. Before paying for the work they should
understand where they have placed them
selves by signing the contract.
If the private contract was signed because OF
an order issued by the Street Superintendent
TO do the work in five days they cannot be
compelled to pay for the work, for the order
compelling it was void and the contract being
signed under compulsion was not right. Re-
ERNEST MCCULLOUGH
On Monday the association will send
copies of the following letter to 1000 of the
leading firms of the city:
To the Merchants and Taxpayers of San Fran
ctseo-DEAR sIRs: Your immediate attention
is respectfully called to the circular letter sent
to you at our request by the Board of Election
Commissioners requesting you to have some