Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1898-03-16
INJURY TO PROPERTY
Delay Of Congress in Providing for
Street Extensions.
DEMAND FOR BOARD OF TRADE BILL
Experience Of Suburbans Affected
by Present Indecision.
G REAT LOSS TO OWNERS

At this season of the year. when plans
for the Improvement of property are in
contemplation by owners, and there is
mere or less inquiry on the part Of pro-
posed purchasers, a good deal of complaint
Is heard about the injury to property
caused by the delay of Congress In enact
ing some street extension legislation. AS
IS well known, a measure is now before
committees of both houses known as the
beard of trade bill, which provides for the
amendment of the street extension act of
1Ss8. Property owners, as a rule, are of
the opinion that either the bill should be
efacted into law or else the act of 1898
should be repealed. At any rate, they want
relief from what has come to be known as
the "red-line mortgage" which has been
laid on suburban property by the maps of
proposed street extensions.
In connection with this subject it is COM
mon to hear OF experiences growing out of
the street extension law related by prop
ertv holders.
A Sample Case.
Here is one as told by Mr.. ]. Riley Dee
BILE to a Star reporter:
ION the 10th of February, 1872 said Mr..
Decide. "a lot was purchased by client
CT mine at the northwest corner of 18th
about year prior to the passage of what
is known the street extension law. In
the fall of 1882 an application was received
by me for the purchase of this lot for
$1,000. The agitation of street extension
was then going on and the prospective pur-
chaser. finding that the lot would be al
NEST entirely taken for streets under the
proposed extension plan, refused to COM
plete the transaction. Several times since
then applications have been made for the
purchase of this lot, and in each case when
the effect of the street extension was dis
covered nothing further was done.
I'm the early part of 1897, after Judge
Cox had decided that the act was unconsti-
tutional, the owner of the property built a
store building on the lot in order to derive
If possible, some revenue from the proper
ty. Several offers were received from the
rental of the building, and a lease was
made for a period of two years and seven
months from August l, 1897, at $3.50 per
month, with man who was not aware of
the street extension legislation. After pay
ing one months rent. and before placing
fixtures in the building. he called upon me
and asked to be relieved from the lease. as
he feared to go to the expense of equipping
the store and starting business with the
prospect of loss resulting in the event the
law carried out.
Refused to BE Convinced.
II tried to assure him that his rights
would be protected. but he refused to be
convinced. He then asked If there would
be any objection to turning over the lease
to some one else. He brought into my Of
flee two men of ample means. to whom the
situation was explained and they entered
into an agreement to rent the building for
a term of five years and six months. and to
pay for that term the sum of 81 ,4I5, be-
sides making the alterations and repairs
] gave release to the first man and had
papers prepared for the proposed new ten
ants and ready for their signatures when
of them Mr. Wilkins cd hot
/ give him the leases and allow him to take
them to the District Commissioners before
he attached his signature At the District
office he was informed that proceedings
had been begun to condemn this land and
that the jury had been summoned under
the street extension law. AS a result | re-
ceived the following letter from Mr.. Will
kins:
From information received at the Com
missioners' office that there are proceedings
in court for the condemnation of the lot at
the corner of Whitney avenue and 18th
street. not seeing our way clear in renting
said store, we return lease unsigned
II called on Mr.. Wilkins and he told me
that both his partner Mr.. Wall. and Inn
self had considered the matter carefully
and had decided not to take the store. as
he understood that when the government
took property in that way no compensation
was allowed for a business that might be
destroyed. and as he intended to fit the
place up in substantial manner. he could
not, in view of the information given at the
Commissioners office, take the risk.
LAS matter of fact" continued Mr..
Decide, mo notification of such proceed
ings to this lot had been received by the
owner or me, as agent. The property was
not leased and the building has remained
unoccupied. with the exception of a few
months when small part of the building
was rented temporarily at a low rental. l
estimate that there has been loss on this
property of per cent interest on $1,000 for
five years and six MONTHS
MIR. Holman's Experience,
Another experience is related by Mr.. Ben
jamin w. Holman, as follows:
about twelve years ago / bought lot Z,
block 10, Meridian Hill, for the purpose of
building house. At that time street ex-
tensions were agitated. For number of
years it was planned to widen 18th street.
My house would have faced west thereon.
l waited for it. Then it was decided to ex-
tend 18th street, in conformity with that
street at Florida avenue, and not defect
1t. That plan was approved, and a map
thereof was placed on record. The condem-
nation of nearly one-half of my lot was
necessary for this proposed extension, and
by 1T my house would have faced east. l
waited several years for this, but, alas, it
has never come.
Now it is decided to abandon 18th street
altogether. and in the present bill it is left
out entirely.
During these years l have paid many
hundreds of dollars for taxes and interest.
L sold the lot once Tor II per square foot;
the rev owner became discouraged and
permitted it to be sold under trust. Hav-
ing second trust on it, l was compelled to
bid 1t in to save myself. 1t cost me so
cents per foot; borrowed 50 cents per foot
on it, and have continued to hold it, hoping
for the execution of the act which would
enable me to use it. The trust of so cents
per foot is now due and am again COM
PEELED TO meet the requirements of renewal
or abandon the property.
This condition of affairs was not caused
by the general depression in real estate
but by the delay in executing the street ex-
tension act. Had that been settled the
ground would today be improved by two
coed houses. Washington Heights and Co
lumbia Heights, on each side. have been
built Up during the period when they were
not affected by the uncertainty of street
extensions.
Result of an Investment.
Here is another instance in my expe-
rience with property in Mount Pleasant.
In 1900 bought for myself and others lots
60 and 81 as an investment I attempted
to subdivide the ground into small lots
My plat was disapproved. and I was in
formed that the ground was soon to be
taken for the extension of 18th street.