The herald., 1896-05-05
NINTH STREET GRADING
Dissa atisfaction on the Part Of Many
Property Owners
A Plan by Which . Saving to Them, 1t Il
Claimed, Of $S3oo Can Be Effected.
The Situation.

Yesterday q petition was presented to
the city council asking that body to re-
consider its action in awarding the con-
tract for grading East Ninth street be-
tween San Pedro street and Central
avenue to Stansbury & ~Oore. threads
as follows:
The undersigned, owners Of property
on Ninth street between Central avenue
and San Pedro street, respectfully petit
ton your honorable body to reconsider
the matter of the award of contract for
the improvement of East Ninth street,
the same not yet having been consum-
mated by the street superintendent,
entering into contract with the graders
on the following grounds:
The bid, which is unreasonably nigh,
would work a great hardship on your
petitioners, and was made before the
street bond act had been declared valid
by the decision of the supreme court. 1t
was the only bid submitted to ana con-
sidered by the city council. and shortly
after the supreme court decision was
published the city council awarded the
contract to Stansbury & Moore. We are
Informed by reliable contractors that II
bids were invited now the work would
be done at a very much smaller cost
to the property owners. And your pet-
TONERS will ever pray, etc.
The above petition was signed BY
number Of property owners. two of whom
present the following information winch
is declared true:
There was only one bid presented to
the city council for the grading OF Ninth
street, and that was by Stansbury q
Moore, at these prices: $1.47 per lineal
foot for grading and graveling. SO cents
per lineal foot for curb, is cents per I'm
cal foot for cutters, $l.00 per lineal toot
for sewer, $1.15 per lineal foot for cross
walks, 13 cents per square foot Tor sloe.
walk, or IS cents per lineal foot, rect
WIDE with additional cost for inspectors
fees and incidental expenses.
This bid was made prior to the dec1S-
ion of the supreme court declaring the
street bonds valid, and when there was
difficulty in cashing street bonds. I'M
mediately after the publication of the
decision of the supreme court the city
council awarded the contract under that
one bid to Stansbury e. Moore. The city
council is powerless now to remedy the
evil
The advice given to the property
owners by the city attorney is that they.
the property owners, do the work them
selves for the least cost possible. The
bond act provides that within ten days
from the date of the first publication
of the award the property owners have
the right to take the contract them
selves, providing that owners repre-
senting three-quarters OF the frontage
wish to do so. They then do or sub-let
the work. and the payments of princi-
pal and interest are the same, namely,
on ten years time at low interest.
The frontage is 500 feet, the contract
will amount to nearly S1S.500, and the
contractors are making a strong fight so
as not to lose the very large profit in
sight. A big effort has been made to
make property owners believe that if
they do the work themselves then the
payments are all immediate cash, and
the grading will be delayed, but the law
is very clear. The payments will be Nn
der the bond act, extending over ten
years. and there will be no delay over
the grading.
Now that the bonds have been de-
clared constitutional, they are as good
as cash. ard there is no further need of
property owners paying from % to 40
per cent more for the work than under
the cash system. in this case the saw
ing will be about 81 per front foot, or
5000 if the property owners do it them
selves under the act alluded to.