New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-10-19
SIDEWALK PROJECTIONS
Revocable Privileges, Not Illegal En-
croschments. Writer Argues.

To the Editor OF The Tribune
Sir. on the calendar of the Board OF
Estimate for Thursday. October 49, IS a
resolution. offered by President Miller Oh
The Bronx on March 16 and overwhelming
" opposed ct a public hearing on April ~
proposing to prohibit projections OF any
kind beyond the building line on any street
I'm the city. In support OF this resolution
the Corporation Counsel is quoted as say
ing that the city has no right Ito allow
the erection OF illegal projections or TO
authorize encroachments which are an
interference with the public use Of the
streets" The Corporation Counsel Is IN
disputably right. However, the courts
have repeatedly declared that the general
ordinances permitting such projections as
have been customary in New York ana
other cities are not Illegal
Tn Linton agt. Coupe. Appellate Division
SIS. II was decided by the Appellate d.
vision. ID Department, that the city might
allow owners Of land abutting on streets
IN residential districts to use five feet OF
the land for courtyards without diverting
such street from the public use to which
II was dedicated.
In Jorgensen act. Squires, IA New YORK
2S0. the court decided that It was com
petert for the Legislature TO authorize
limited use Of the sidewalks in front OF
buildings IN cities and villages for stoops
and cellar openings or underground vaults
for the more convenient and beneficial en-
ioyment Of the adjacent premises, ana
that although such uses might restrict
somewhat the free and unembarrassed use
of the streets for pedestrians. the general
interests were suhserved by making avail
able To the greatest extent valuable prop
erty. increasing business facilities, giving
encouragement 10 improvements and add
ing 10 taxable values.
Il has also been claimed as justification
for the resolution that the corporation
ordinances permitting these projections
are unconstitutional. Directly the contrary
appears to he the fact, for when the
state constitution was adopted Article J.
Section 16. made the Montgomerie charter
q part Of the law of the State OF New
York, and this specifically grants to the
Common Council power. authority and
license to frame laws. rights, ordinances
etc. which shall seem 70 be good
useful or necessary. MS power mas "cVH
continued in all subsequent charters, and
is incorporated In Section 80 Of the prs
ent city charter, which permits "stoor
lines"
The same privileges are granted in most
large cities, and have been throughout the
world for thousands of years. They are
necessary as means Of access and exit
light and ventilation of the buildings Of
city. and are as much public use Of the
streets as IS their use by pedestrians.
The United states government permits
projections Inspector Hacker. OF Wash
ington, says: The title TO all land beyond
the building line IN the District OF Column
bia IS in the federal government. and pro-
iections are granted as a privilege and
may not he claimed as n right" That Is
all that has been claimed for them IN
New York-that they are privileges. re-
vocable at the pleasure of the city when
ever the space they occupy may be re-
quired for any public Improvement. A re-
vocable privilege Is not an encroachment.
Tho conclusive proof that they are not
an interference with the public use Of the
streets is the fact that throughout It's
corporate existence the city Of New York
has not found It necessary TO revoke them,
except I'm half dozen streets. where the
Increase I'm properly values makes II less a
hardship than II extended IN the future
throughout the city. as proposed by the
Miller resolution ALBERT 2. DAVIS.
New York oct. l5. 1911.