Arizona republican., 1915-08-05
PAVING |S ID. BRING PROTEST
Attorney A. D. Leyhe in Behalf of West Adams and West Monroe Streets Will File Brief Today With City Commission

protests against the extension of pay
 ing on West Adams and West Mon roe streets. a brief by A. b. Leyhe | representing the protestants will be ] presented. The following are the
 essential features of it:
 Tn compliance with the provision | of the improvement act. and within | the time specified, a written protest Was filed with the city clerk of the city of Phoenix, by the owners, as | protestants contend, of approximately | 6Ol2 per cent of the frontage of | property fronting on the proposed | improvement, or 62 per cent of the | frontage of property fronting on the | streets or parts of streets comprised | within the limits of the assessment i district To be more exact and ex- plicit, we find there is approximate i ly 11,I91 feet of property frontage | fronting on the proposed improve l ment, and the protesting petitions | bear the names of the owners of r. l 126lA feet of the property frontage 1 fronting on the said improvement. We also find that there is in said
 assessment district approximately l 17956 feet of property frontage fronting on the streets or parts of streets comprised therein, and said protesting petitions contains the
 names of the owners of II, ,13G feet of
 said property frontage.
 l. In making these estimates of prop | erty frontage we conclude that none of the property fronting facing on
 either Seventh or Seventeenth ave
 nues should be included in the totals, 1 for the improvement contemplated i begins at the west side of Seventh | avenue and terminates at the east
 siGe of Seventeenth avenue. Neither | the intersections of Seventh avenue
 and Adams street, nor Seventh ave-
 nue and Adams and Monroe streets. 1 are to be paved. and eherefore the | reasons for assessing, what may be | termed the side streets" within the ! district or the streets therein which are not to be paved, do not exist as | to the property fronting on the said | two avenues.
 | The courts have frequently re- 1 cognized the distinction, and in sev- | eral causes nave applied the distinc- | tive rules ol- construction to ques- 1 tions similar to those at issue in this 1 matter. In no case has there been l noted a greater clearness If concep- 1 tion than in City Street Improve l ment Co. vs. Babcock, reported in 139 Cal 69O,-736 Pac. 6667, wherein | the court says: The rule that ob 1 tains with respect to proceedings against the property by which his l property may be taken rom him ! without his fee consent. to the ef-
 feet that all such proceedings must 1 be construed with great strictness' and all requirements of the statute l precisely followed, if they are of such
 a nature that by any possibility he l might be preiudiced by<a failure to observe them, is not applicable to | this proceeding in the way or pro | test by him, It is a proceeding in | his favor provided for the purpose of enabling him to prevent the talk | ing of his property for a public i'm
 movement which he does not desire, There is no reason why clause of the | statute should net receive a liberal | construction, with a view to effect it's object and promote justice
 That cause had to do with the l sufficiencv Of a protest against cer- tain street Improvements, and the su- l preme court of California, arose to meet the demands of juGtice, pro- | claiming as rule of law that the
 
 | private property and rights of an in diNiduai should not be taken from him by reason of any unimportant technicality, and declaring that every | intendment should be construed in his favor.
 That same court, in Los Angeles Lighting Co. vs. City of Los Angeles reported in 106 Cal at page 156, "9 | Pac. 535 in considering the sui 1 ficiency of protest against street im- | movement said: This was suffI- cient to entitle it to be considered as | a protest by them against the lm- pavement The protests contem- plated by the statute are not required to be executed with any particular formality They do not create any
 burden or obligation and are not to
 be executed with the ceremonies re- quired for a transfer of real estate, or for creating a charge thereon. It is sufficient if they indicate to the city council that the proposed inn | provement is objected to, and that this objection is made by the own CTS of the majority of the frontage upon the line of the work.
 We now come to the particular points of contentious, and .First. That by the signing of | protest by an agent.
 "This question is so elementary | that we can not conceive of the | necessity of an extended discussion, | and particularly when the courts | have determined that the protest | need not be executed with any particular formality, nor with any of the ceremonies required for | a transfer of real estate. or Tor creating a charge thereon. However.
 the question has been given 1udic1al determination. Under the California | improvement law, from which our | improvement act of 1912 was. copied, | aS n The