The Morning Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Okla.) 1919-1927, 1922-03-11
GRANT HEARINGS
ON NEW PAVING
Protests Covering 32j,
329, 341, $40 viii BE
Heard Friday
CHARGES ABOUT SAME
Claim Assessments Against
Property Is More Than
Benefits Derived

Property owners .a Improvement
districts noe. $780,, 800. ail and a49
urs % be- giyon hearings Tor pro-
tn4ts by the mayor ana cUmmIH-
gioucrs az 80 O'Clock IrIlay morn
ms ClN7cus from an OF thcHo dis
frIcts attended the com misslOu
meeting fyl1ny However Guy At
tornoy Frank T.. Duncan nt mat
time asked lint tho hearing Lo con
tlnucd anul District Judge Redmond
4. Colo signed tho journal entry in
the Irving place case. 10 tho ciiy
attorney could lntclllreutly digest
This decision and au1lyzu DO Tor tho
benefit OF tho mayor nud comuI3.
sionors before the hearing Us held.
Protests were flcd by those prop
erty owners by Louis W. Pratt, who
represented Irving plnce property
owners In tho trial before Judge
Cole. Somo tlme was spent by Pratt
city Attorney Duncan, paving con-
tractors ana their attorneys and
Mayor y. D. Evans discussing tho
case and tho protests.
The protest from property own
crs IN district No, 3i9 ie typical OF
the others and reads as follows:
THE undersigned, property own
ers In blocks g and z. Factory ad-
lition TO the city of Tulsa, respect
fully state and f,le our objections 10
ana hereby protest hgaluat the pro-
posed assessment uf our property
and all property proposed 10 be aH-
scssed for the paving FOR quincy
avenue In street Improvement dis
trlct No. 34s, Of the city OF Tulsa,
oklahoma, upon tho following
grounds, TO wit.
Assessment Irregular.
81. That the proposed assess
ment IL irregular, unlawful ana void
for non compliance with the prOvl-
siOns Of the charter ~ tho city of
TulSa IN respect to the assessment
OF property for street improvements.
"2. That the proposed nssos7-
ments against tho property IN said
assessment district Nnro excessive.
oppressive and conflscgtory and In
cxccAs Of the special benefits result
Ing or TO result from tho said paw
ing OF said quincy avenue and in
Clude certain Items which are not
lawful charges against tho properly
proposed to ho assessed, 20 wit;
An addition OF 20 per cent, more or
leas. to the estimated cost OF said
paving to enable the contractor to
dispose OF special tax bills. COnsti-
tuting a first lion or charge against
tho property sought 10 be assessed
for said paving Mt n large discount
and per cent for engineering fees
and S--.---- for advertising TO be
paid by the contractor into tho gem
eral fund OF the city OF Tulsa. In
violation OF the constitution and
laws OF the state of Oklahoma and
the city OF Tulsa.
Contract IL Fraudulent.
"3. That the contract for the
pavement or quincy avenue In said
street assessment district is frnudu,
lent and void for the colluslon and
fraud between contractors whereby
the property owners In said district
we're deprived Of fair and open com
petition and the contract fer said
paving was awarded at an excessive
eNorbitnnt and unreasonRbly high
figure. both as To the paving, curb,
ing. grading and all other trimming
included In said contract and the
city engineers estimate OF the costs
OF said Improvement. which sn'd
estimate your petitioners claim wa'
padded by said city engineer Tor IN,
benefit OF paving contractors To tho
prejudice ana injury OF tho ow Ter.
of property to be assessed therefor
-. That your petitioners nov,
been deprived of legal notice OF sal,
Improvement and an opportunity Il