Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1910-09-29
BUILDING
CANNOT Be
REMOVED
COUNCIL REFUSED TO SUSTAIN
THE MAYOR IN GRANTING
PERMISSION TO BLIGH TO
MOVE OLD BUILDING ON THE
MURPHY PROPERTY.

The proposition of Manager T. G..
Bligh, of two or three local moving
picture shows, and w. H. Ruther-
ford, a business man of this city,
for permission to move the CORFU
gated iron and wooden frame one
story structure, now situated upon
one of the lots of the ]. j. Murphy
estate on State street, between Lib
erty and High, and occupied by the
real estate firm of Meyer & Belle,
onto a vacant piece of ground facing
Liberty street in the same block,
which came before the city council
and was turned down by that body,
caused quite a furore at the last
meeting of the council. The action
of Acting Mayor Stolz in granting a
verbal permit for the removal of the
building was countermanded by the
council on the ground that the lot
now occupied by the building and
that to which it is proposed to move
the building does not constitute the
same piece of property within the
meaning of section 23 of the city
ordinances prescribing fire limits of
the city and placing restrictions up
on building within such limits.
The principal question involved in
the controversy is whether the lot
now occupied by the building, which
was originally owned by J. j. Muir
ply, deceased, and the parcel of
ground on Liberty street, afterward
sold and transferred to the heirs of
the Verani estate, constitute the
same piece of ground as originally, |
and the proposition to move the |
around was strongly petit /
toned against and protested by a
number of business men and prop /
erty owners on Liberty street, in
cluding p. H. Darcy, Catlin & Linn;
A. ~ Gilbert; Buren & Hamilton
and others, on the ground that the !
building did not come within the |
specifications required by the fire
INIT ordinances and would be q
menace to other property in thar
and an eye sore to the busi-
ness section of the city 1t also
cropped out that the most serious
Ibjectors to the proposed removal
If the building were P. H. Darcy.
who owns the property adjoining on
he north of the vacant lot, and
}uren & Hamilton, whose attempt
o improve an old building in the
anne black some two years ago was
contested by the city and the build
ng restriction ordinance was de-
eated at a cost to the city of $120.
he present ordinance was enacted
o remedy the defects in the old or
nance.
The building on the Murphy prop
rty was constructed after the old
rdinance was declared void by the .
ipreme court at an approximate
1st of $1,000 and one of the con-
,ntons of the acting mayor was
uilding exceeded so per cent of the
rginal cost of the structure, he
as quite within his rights in grant
lg the permit to move it around,
pom the same lot, and in proof of
lis contention he claims that the
after was referred to the city at
rney who crawled underneath and
yer the building to examine it ami
und that it was constructed upon
new foundation, had new floor
id was practically new throughout
id that it was upon his report and
that the acting
ayor gave his permission for its re-
oval.
Alderman Lachmund, Greenbaum,
bridge and others questioned the
---------------