The herald., 1898-08-27
THERE ARE OTHERS
DOUGLAS BUILDING NOT THE
ONLY TREsPAssER
SCHOOLS NEED MORE MONEY
Interview with President Davis Of the
School Board-Abbot Kinney
Presses His Scheme

Whatever may be the result Of the at
tempt to prevent the entrance Of the new
Douglas building at the northwest corner OF
Spring and Third streets from extending
onto the public sidewalk, the agitation OF
the matter will at least have the effect OF
making builders more cautious In this par
ticular in the future. In addition to this,
the investigation incident to the builders
efforts to obtain concession to public prop
erty has developed the fact that there are
a score or more of the largest buildings In
the city undisturbed in their encroachment
on the sidewalk line.
At the meeting of the board Of public
works yesterday. Judge Pope, representing
the Stimson estate. presented the following
as a partial list Of the buildings which ex-
tend upon the sidewalk. The location, part
Of the building extending beyond the prop
erty line and the amount Of the projection
are given:
Billiard block, North Spring, main en-
trance, foot 6 inches; Byrne block, West
Third, basement stairway, 4 feet inches:
city hall. main entrance, 2 feet inches;
Bank of California building, Broadway and
Second, main entrance, 3 feet 10 inches; Y.
y. "A.
trance, 3 feet 4 inches; Potomac building,
Broadway, main entrance, 2 feet; Bryson
book, main entrance, foot II inches;
Laughlin block. Broadway, main entrance,
feet inches; Van Mugs hotel, South
Main, two main entrances. foot inches;
Wells-Fargo building. South Main, base
ment stairs. 2 feet Q inches; Bradbury
building. Broadway and Third, basement
stairs, foot-14 main piers, inches: Bur-
dick building, Second and Spring, main en-
trance foot 9 inches; Westminster hotel,
South Main. main entrance, inches; Lam
kershlm building, Spring and Third, main
entrance. 6 inches: Stlmson block, Spring
and Third, main entrance to Citizens bank,
1 foot 6 inches; main entrance to safety de-
posits. foot inches.
Judge Pope makes the claim that the
above Is proof that there has been no cast
iron rule In operation to prevent this charac-
ter of encroachment the object Of any ex-
listing law being only to prevent the public's
being inconvenienced.
1.-THE sidewalk in front Of this building Is Is
feet wide," said," he, land the slight space
taken by the pilasters of this entrance GER
tainly cannot be as serious as the taking of
basement stairway as has been done In
the building Of the Byrne block. If the OBJ
lection had been raised when the plans
were presented to the Building superintend-
emit the change could have been made
without a penny Of cost: now It will entail
a considerable expense. In all Justice. too,
you cannot make us cut down the entrance
unless you issue the same order relative to
some Of the other buildings"
Building Superintendent Stratton was
very much In evidence about this time, and
took about half an hour In making one Of
his lucid explanations. As far as he could
be understood, HIS statement was to the
effect that he granted permit to the build
ers through courtesy, on their representa-
lions that the plans were being made in
San Francisco and would in every way con-
form to the law. On the bottom Of the
permit Is a stipulation that the demolish-
ing Of the old structure may be proceeded
with, but the plans and specifications for
the new building must be submitted to the
building superintendent before the new
building Is started. stratton claimed that
this stipulation was not compiled with, but
Architect Reid contends that the plans were
submitted before the work Of construction
was begun, and that STATIONS claim Is
based on the theory that the stipulation was
supposed to require submission Of the
plans before the excavating was started.
Reid states further that Stratton found
fault with the plans in a score or more of
points, and, although they were all prompt
~ rectifed long ago., the point Of the pro-
jecting pilasters was never mentioned I'M
til the work had progressed so far that
change in this particular would result in
great expense and delay. STATIONS an
swer to this is that he id not give permit
to build building on public property, but on
a private lot In Ord's survey.
In justification of their course the build
ers contended that so far as the projecting
pilasters themselves are concerned 1t is
fact that the majority Of the large cities in
the United States permit ornamental en-
frances TO large buildings to project on to
the public sidewalks. This privilege is
granted as an incentive to architec tural
beauty in structures of this character, for
no builder is going to sacrifice two or three
feet along the entire frontage for the pur-
pose of having the space necessary to an
ornamental entrance. In San Francisco,
by a general understanding with the city
council, three feet are allowed builders for
this purpose, but in some instances the al
lowance is materially increased. This was
true in the case of the San Francisco Call
building, which was given six feet on a
wide sidewalk for its main entrance pro-
lection.
Probably the most fragrant violation of
the peoples rights to the sidewalk is the in
stance of the Byrne building mentioned in
Judge Pope's list. The basement stairway
takes up a full half of the nine-foot side
walk on Third street, and the building SUI
perintendents department has often been
notified that the stairway should be taken
away, but the notification has apparently
been ignored. The city attorneys depart
ment states that any property owner who
builds a projecting structure does a very
risky thing, and on the complaint OF any
tax payer such structure can be removed
from public property, no matter how long
1t has been there.
The board Of public works took the mat
ter Of the Douglas building under advise
ment and will probably report on Mon
day.
BOARD OF PuBr,IC WORKS