The Washington times., 1902-01-07
BUILDING ON
ALLEY LOTS.
A ProtestHgainSt Prohibi-
tOrylegiSlatiOn.
EQUAL RIGHTS OF ALL PROPERTY.
Robert W. Mcpherson Calls Attcn-
tiOn OF Comm is> toner's to His Rep
resentati"ns to the Senate District
mmittec-PrOposcd Bill Initiates
Against Property Owners.

Robert W. Mcpherson, of 1910 Nine
teenth Street northwest has addressed
the Commissioners of the District on the
subject of the proposed legislation affect
ing the status OF lets abutting upon al
leys.
Mr.. Mcpherson states that he has in
formation that the Commissioners, in
connection with the District Committees
in Congress. propose to follow out the
suggestion made by the President in his
message and to inaugurate legislation
looking to the prohibition of further
building upon such lots and possibly to
require the gradual removal of houses
from alleys already so improved.
A Letter of Protet.
Mr.. Mcpherson encloses a letter on the
subject which he has written to Senator
Mcmillan, Chairman of the Senate Dis
trict Committee on the District of Col
umbia, to which he invites the attention
Of the Commissioners.
''It was the CUSTOM says Mr.. Nc
Pherson. for some generations back in
the cities of Washington and Georgetown,
and until a very recent date, to subdi-
alleys, and to improve them with dwell
ings which could be rented or sold at
prices within the reach of the humber
class of tenants. A large number of tine
alleys in this city have such subdivisions,
coHmcnly known as alley lots which
have been for long time past laid out
with the approval of the authorities, and
have become matters of record in the Of
flee of the Recorder of Deeds, and at a
lot -t.al ,Tf, .xf
the surveyor of the District.
The Property Improved.
"A large number of these subdivisions
have been improved by the erection of
dwellings. Water mains and sewers have
been laid in these alleys by the District
of Columbia and its predecessors, and the
cost has been collected from the owners
of this class of property by special as
sessment on the land. All land of this
character, whether vacant or improved,
has been listed on the tax books, and, so
listed and assessed. is contributing its
I full proportion TO the expenses OF the
District
Having made the foregoing statement
Of the status of this character of land in
the cities of Washington and Georgetown,
Mr.. Mcpi;erson calls the attention of Sem
ator Mcmillan to the act of Congress
approved July %, 1892 which provided
| that from the time of its passage the
owners OF the property under considera-
tion should be prohibited from erecting
any dwelling on any alley less than thirty
feet wide. and which did not run straight
to and open at right angles to one of the
public streets by which the square is
bounded. Mr.. Mcpherson stated his be-
/; Lief thai this legislation was prepared
and initiated by the Commissioners of
the District.
No Compensation Provided.
Mr.. Mcpherson thinks that if this leg
. islation had gone so far as to provide
some mode of compensating owners whose
vested rights were practically divested
by il no objection could be made. He
says it had been the usage for many years
to subdiyide and improve lots upon alleys
less than thirty feet wide and without
the entrance and exit provided by the act
of Congress. For this reason he main
tains that This legislation practically va
Gated the rights of the owners of many
pieces of land, some of which was vacant
and some improved with houses. If such
improvements had been destroyed by fire
he said no permit could be secured TO re-
build them
-sIT s1cfHeTSOH HuiuS tndt real estate
which the owner cannot make available
as a source of income has its title cloud
ed, and he argues that the passage of
legislation such as he is informed is
under consideration would still further
oppress large class of property holders.
Property Glass Distinction.
Mir. Mcpherson refers to the sanitary
question involved He asks why, if the
freeing OF the alley lots to AFFORD light
and air is beneficial to the houses on
the main streets, one class OF property
should be confiscated for the benefit of
another. He thinks it would be just
to vacate the streets for the benefit of
the alleys.
Mr.. Mcpherson argues with some
vehemence that the legislation proposed
should not be passed unless it contains
a provision to compensate the owners of
the property whose rights 1t will invade.