The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1901-06-20
OBJECT TO WIDTH.
Kansas Avenue Property Own
ers Talk Of Injunction.
DON'T Want the Pavement Made
80 Feet Wide.

Another pavement injunction suit IS
being talked of. The people who object
to the pavement of Kansas avenue be-
tween Tenth and Fourteenth are up in
arms, and expect to make a determin-
ed fight against the change in the width
of the pavement from so to 80 feet.
The fight is likely to be made with
especial reference to that portion of the
street south of Thirteenth street. The
leaders in the fight are S. M. Wood and
John Maxwell
The grounds for the injunction suit
are likely to be the recent ruling in re-
gard to pavement petitions made BIZ
City Attorney Spencer. Mr.. Spencer
holds that any property holder, no mat
ter how much in arrears he may be for
taxes, has a right to sign a petition for
pavement, even when it is practically
certain that his property will soon be
up at forced sale to pay the county the
amount due on back taxes
Mr.. Spencer made this ruling in the
case of the Richie property on Quincy
street. This property is five years in
arrears for taxes. and yet it was held
by Mr.. Spencer that Mr.. Richie had
the right to sign the petition for paving
Quincy street.
The Kansas avenue people who OBJ
ject to a 90-foot pavement say that ten
lots on the east side of Kansas avenue.
south of Thirteenth street, owned by a
woman named Mrs. Putnam, are in ar
rears for taxes. They further claim
that Mrs. Putnam is really not a resi-
dent of the city of Topeka, and has not
been for some time. On both of these
grounds, they object to allowing her to
sign the petition for pavement. With
out Mrs. Putnams signature, the petit
ton for pavement will be lacking con-
siderably of enough signers to insure
the construction of the pavement.
John Maxwell, speaking of the situa-
ton said:
I'VE have not fully determined what
we will do. but we are looking around
to see If we can get the assistance of
the people in that vicinity in making
a fight the widening of the pave
ment. I am not opposed to the con-
Struction Of the pavement, but am
opposed to making it 80 feet wide. It
will cost us about 1920 a lot for 90-foot
pavement, and that is more than many
of US feel that we can pay. It does not
seem fair and just that a person who
holds property which is in arrears for
taxes should have the power to compel
us to pave contrary to our wishes. It
makes it very probable that the city
viii have to step in before long and as
sumo the Indebtedness for the ten lots
which are in arrears"
George Reuter-, who is the prime NOV
err in the plan to have a 90-foot pave
ment laid, says that he has heard moth
ing of any opposition to the plan, ex-
cept the protest which was filed with
and turned down by the committee on
streets and walks.
T have not investigated the condi-
ton Of the Putnam property, as to back
taxes. In regard to Mrs. Putnam being
a nonresident, can only say that she
was living on Buchanan street at the
time the petition was presented to her.
She appeared to be a resident, and I
think she Isl
There is no chance of stopping the
construction of the 9O-foot pavement
without resort to legal proceedings, as
the council has acted finally and favor
ably on the proposed 9O-foot pavement.