Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-04-16
Eleventh Street Extension.
To the Editor of The Star:

To the Editor of The Star:
Please allow me space in your valuable
paper for the purpose of eliminating, as
far possible, the injustice that has been
and is being done to the property owners
along the line of 18th street extended by
reason of the one-sided statements that
are being given out daily to the press In
relation to the evidence concerning alleged
benefits to the property along the line OF
said street In the case now under consider
alton in our local courts
Truth-yea, JUSTICES often choked by
mans ambition. 1t Is hard to conceive
why these statements are given out, eSpe-
cially in the color they are, unless 1t Is
intended to intimidate witnesses who are
expected to testify on behalf of the proper
ty owners. 1t is said that Mr.. John B.
Turpin (who was called by one of the land
owners to testify especially about property
bordering upon Whitney avenue) said that
the property Immediately abutting upon
the street and extending back from 100 to
$50 feet had been benefited to the extent OF
from 80 to 80 per cent; and that the prop
erty from Florida avenue to Roanoke street
had been benefited from 30 to 30 per cent,
all the way up to the lots fronting on 18th
street.
What Mr.. Turpin did say Gas his testi-
mony, reported by the stenographer at the
trial will show was that the property on
Whitney avenue (Which he was called upon
reason of the extension of said street; that
in his opinion said property would sell for
more II the street had not been extended.
He further said that all property from
Florida avenue to Lydecker street, except
ing the lots Immediately abutting upon 18th
street sold at much better price before
the street was opened than 1t would now;
that the property abutting upon the street
benefited to the extent named, pro-
vided it was found more advantageous to
Srlh1iUi0a
street than 1t would be II they were sub
divided to front on cross street In other
words, he said that where piece OF land
could be subdivfded SO as to give larger
frontage on 11th street than 1t would have
If subdivided with lots fronting on any or
the cross streets 1t would be benefited for
that reason, but where 1t was found more
advantageous to subdivide and front the
lots on a cross street where lots had
been SO subdivided, the benefit would only
extend about 10 or 20 feet, or to one lot
which had been made corner by reason
of the extension.
the values of the property from Florida
avenue to Roanoke street before the street
was opened, and could not now give the
values of the same; that he thought the
property along Clifton street had been BEN
Gifted to a large portion OF the street 'front.'
age by reason of having outlet through
18th street which It did not have before
the street was opened but of course the
grade cuts through That property
have to be taken into consideration He
said he would not undertake to say what
that property was worth before or after the
streets were opened; and as the benefit, If
any, is to be based upon enhancement in
values 1t is plainly seen that his evidence
in relation to that, he supposed himself,
was of little value Many OF the witnesses
on behalf of the District testified that II
11th street had been extended from Florida
avenue to Roanoke street on the original
grade or the grade on 18th street, the
property would have been worth twice as
much today as 1t will be when graded
down to the street In it's present condition.
These are the facts, as will be shown by
the record in the case, and make this
statement not for the purpose of influencing
any one but solely for the purpose of con-
tradicting that which has been said.s
I do not mean to complain of your re-
porters having received these statements,
as it is impossible for them TO be present
in all the courts and at all the hearings.
LEO SIMMONS.