The following notes have been transcribed from copies of the original supplied by George Traynor, son of A.S. Traynor, one of the principles of this saga. They are used with permission. George was sure no one would be interested but I disagreed and he agreed to let them appear on this page. Ada Boulevard is a prominent feature of the Highlands, Bellevue and Virginia Park communities and these notes tell of one the early trials and tribulations. George reports that now, all is well... and, as noted in the photographs, nothing has changed regarding the topic of these writings.
Please note in a couple of places attached reports are referred to, unfortunately these have been lost.
ENCROACHMENT OF PRIVATE PROPERTIES ON TO CITY PROPERTY IN THE. BLOCK FIFTY-THIRD STREET
TO FIFTY-FIFTH STREET ON ADA BLVD.
Brief covering property encroachments and irregularities, 53rd St. to 55th St. on Ada Blvd.
In preamble, during the Spring of 1949 Messrs. Traynor and Howard undertook construction of two residences on lots 20 and 21 - blk. 37, plan 633HW in the above block. Preliminary to operation, City Engineers Department were paid the required fee for establishment of building grade stakes, which were adhered to thereafter. On completion of construction, it was desired to finish off the boulevard and frontage. To this end the City Engineers Department were again approached and the right to complete the boulevard by owner to grades established was ascertained and confirmed. In this respect the Department was requested to give the boulevard width dimension. This they advised was 17' 0", accordingly and in good faith, the work at owners expense was carried out and completed to meet this requirement. Pertinent to the above boulevard dimension and established grade stakes, these ware several years later confirmed to Mr. Butchart of lot #19 to the east of the above property by Mr. Link of the Engineers Department.
In 1954, grade stakes given Mr. Allen of lot #20: S21 - blk 5, plan . #3045 confirmed grades originally given. By the foregoing, it will be noted that Messrs. Howard, Traynor, Butchart and Allen, acquired City building grade and conformed to said grades in their operations.
In the interval other property owners in the block carried out operations without obtaining grade stakes and without regard or consideration for the obvious property and boulevard lines previously established by the first property owners Messrs. Howard and Traynor, which leads to the present encroachments and irregularities and present intolerable situation.
In the Fall and Winter of 1952 petitions were circulated to property holders in the above block for curbing and paving and subsequently accepted by the City. A few days prior to May 24, 1953 the City Engineers Department staked lines for curbing. On examination, it was found that the proposed curbing did not follow the original lines intimated; but formed an obnoxious double bias immediately in front. of the Howard and Traynor properties. It is apparent that they were established to allow the curbing to circumvent encroachments by certain private property owners, that they might maintain the said encroachments undisturbed and in contravention of the regulations the City required of the other property owners, Signers of this Brief.
Ascertaining that excavation for curbing was to start the morning following Victoria Day.., it was necessary to formulate a protest petition requesting curb be installed on original lines and obtain signatures in the interim in order to stop this work. Consequently work of curbing and paving were postponed pending settlement of protest. In consequence of this situation the Mayor appointed a special investigator, Mr. T. Wilson, to make an inspection of the conditions first hand and to report back to him.
Copy of Mr. Wilsons' report is attached hereto.
The Mayor called a meeting of all the property owners in the block except Howard and Traynor; a report of this as remembered by Mr. Allen who attended is attached.
Following the foregoing meeting the Mayor requested Mssrs. Howard and Traynor to meet him at
the City Hall to discuss the matter. The Mayor did not attend this meeting; but delegated Commissioner Menzies and assistant City Engineer, Mr. Debney in his place. The two owners were informed that having adhered to City regulations, and obtaining building grade stakes, the city were bound to honor the said grades; but as owners who had disregarded regulations and and carried on construction on City property were asking for a. compromise Mssrs. Howard and Traynor were requested to make their wishes known in this respect, and were advised that the disaffecting owners had been told that the right to leave their works and encroachments on City property depended on Mssrs. Howard and Traynor's agreement. Herein lies the crux of this whole unbearable situation City officials placed the onus of responsibility on two property owners as to whether or not their neighbors remove the works they had placed on City property and adhere to the rules or not. This has tended to set neighbor against neighbor. Creating an obnoxious and untenable position for those following the rules and doing the right thing.
Needless to say Mssrs. Howard and Traynor protested such imposition: maintaining that such decision was the City's responsibility and have consistently adhered to this attitude. Nevertheless as taxpayers they were bound to insist that all owners in the block be required to meet, city regulations, that no discrimination be tolerated. That with Mssrs. Howard and Traynor and later, Butchart and Allen, having complied with grades laid down, the question of a compromise is a physical impossibility and can only be accomplished by everyone complying with the rules
As a result of these meetings and City officials suggestions to the encroaching owners, Traynor and Howard were approached by them requesting that their encroachments be left undisturbed or was alternative was desired. The reply given advised that, as the rules had been made by the city and we had advised City officials of our wishes it was the city's responsibility to tell what should and must be done.
Ignorance was pleaded as an excuse for the encroachment violation. This might apply as far as the right of the private citizens to carry out operations and put up work on public property was concerned, but could not apply o property lines and these citizens were well aware of such demarcation, having to know this before building construction. At this point we wish to draw attention to the fact that one owner, when he first started his work, was advised by City officials of his illegal encroachment, and was subject to its removal. This to date has not been done.
Apparently as a result of our insistence that rules be adhered to by everyone in the block, the encroaching owners brought out a questionnaire, a copy of which is herewith attached, as is also the replies of Howard and Traynor and Butchart; the reading of which should be sufficient to indicate the incongruity of a such a document. That the document was out of order goes without saying.
We were next approached by the encroaching owners, with the proposal that they purchase the City encroached land; but that we, Howard and Traynor would be given gratis the comparative properties. In this connection it must be noted that encroaching owners had so arranged their properties and integrated same with City property so as to appear integral and as one complete estate. Whereas Howard and Traynor having already complied with City rules and regulations, their properties could not be construed as a unit with City property under any circumstances, the boulevards being so very evident. Naturally we could not see our way to condone such a suggestion. At this point we wish to draw attention to the fact that encroachments left where they were, were creating a great hazard to life and limb, which was admitted by City officials. Our neighbors and City officials were emphatically advised that under no circumstances did they wish to purchase City land or have it given to us and as it would never appear to be our anyhow.
In spite of our reiteration that the City carry out its responsibilities, the onus was continuously referred back to by City officials to make a decision in favour of the encroaching owners. Bearing this out, Commissioner Menzies called a meeting on November 22nd, 1953, of all members of the block on site Ada Bld. Mssrs. Traynor and Allen were unable to attend this meeting. No major decision was reached and encroaching owners still desired to maintain their hold on City propriety except for rounding of works adjacent and immediately West of Traynors and similarly East of W. Butcharts. Due to the lateness of the season we were advised nothing could be done until Spring. The meeting then came to an end with Commissioner Menzies advising Mr. Howard that he would contact Mr. Traynor and discuss the situation further with him and would advise Mr. Howard of the City's decision and proposal before any action was taken.
Neither Howard or Traynor were contacted verbally or by Mr. Menzies or any other City official and advised of any proposed decision or action. Only due to accidental notice of advertisement following Spring of 1954 in the daily paper, of this City's proposal to curb and pave, were we made aware of the City's intention. We are confident that City Council, knowingly would never have condoned such an act.
It was ascertained from City Engineers Dept. and Mr. MacDonald as well as from survey stakes, that curb line would follow a line 25 ft. out at the west corner of our block intersection of 55 st. and running parallel to property line to a point directly in line with Mr. Traynor's west boundary, then on a bias to the eastern block corner and 17 ft. out from property line which corresponded to the boulevard projection on the other side of the intersection of 53 St.
It was evident this was done to again circumvent the necessity of interfering with the encroachment of the block. It was therefore necessary to again obtain and submit a petition to the City to stop work until such time as the curb was installed on a continuous bias from 55 st. to 53 st. so that all property owners would have an equal amount of this bias which would not be to evident, spread over the entire block as opposed to a few lots. No question at this time was raised regarding encroachment, as the signees of this brief realized fully that adherents to the suggested curb line would automatically require the removal of the encroaching work.
Following this action Mssrs. Howard and Traynor requested and obtained an audience with the Mayor. They registered further protests and insisted that immediate action be taken by the City to eliminate this intolerable situation. The Mayor promised at that time that some action would be taken to satisfy us although not committing himself to any concrete proposal and further assuring us that we were in the right. Nothing further transpired until June 29, 1954 when we received a letter, which we understand did all the owners in the block, from Commissioner Menzies (copy of which is attached).
The intent of this letter indicated that at long last City officials had seen the light and that justice would be done. However, September 15, 1954 passed with no action being taken and it was not until latter part of October 1954 before the City took action and then to our consternation work being carried on indicated that the boulevard was not being lowered to grade back to property line, but only partially so and this work took place on only two properties out of five encroachments. Still further protests were made both several and jointly to the City official without any reasonable explanation forthcoming except that they would look into the matter.
The Mayor and Commissions again visited the site and when contacted by Mr. Howard the Mayor advised that as the boulevard was a scenic route eventually the boulevard must be lowered to grade and all encroachments eliminated. When asked when this would occur no definite time was stated and it was suggested by Mr. Howard that that could be another twenty years. The Mayor stated that the encroaching property were being advised by letter that they could stand ready to remove their works at any time in the future when the City decided to carry out boulevarding.
Mr. Howard then requested a copy of the letter but has never received such a copy or other written advice.
Further to the foregoing grading operations Mr. Allan who was on vacation at the time appends his report of experience herewith: MR. ALLAN'S REPORT
As taxpayers we cannot understand why expensive equipment was used to do a very small part of the job required to lower boulevard to grades already set by the City Engineers Dept. and thus necessitating the return at a future date of this equipment and crew to work over the same area, and other lot areas in the same block so increasing the costs to the taxpayers unnecessarily.
No further advice was received from the City and the encroaching neighbors in the early part of the year once more circulated a petition requesting paving and curbing. Out of a total of 16 names on the tax roll for this block only eight affirmative signatures were received, all of them being encroaching owners, a percentage insufficient to validate the petition.
Having had no assurance whatever from the City officials in writing that irregularities i 11 this block would be adjusted the signees of this brief refused to sign the petition as we felt this was the only weapon we had to help secure our rights.
Despite insufficient signatures a notice of intention to pave and curb was inserted in the March 19th and. 26th 1955 issues of the Edmonton Journal.
Mr. Traynor immediately contacted Mr. MacDonald, City Engineer, pointing out that this was in contradiction of all city rules and ordinances and the explanation given was quote "I realize there was not sufficient signatures, but upon reference to Commissioner Menzies he suggested that the notice be inserted in the Journal and see what "happens". Mr. MacDonald intimated our only recourse was to immediately protest this being done and signed jointly and severally by Messrs. Traynor, Howard, Allan and Butchart. In this protest, registered and mailed April 6th it, 'is pointed out that we required an immediate reply because of the urgency of the matter. No reply was received until April 18th long after the date of the Council meeting which had taken up the matter and given approval. Had we been advised that the matter was to be taken up with Council, we would have arranged representation to present our case, (as apparently did the signees of the petition) which undoubtedly could have resulted in an entirely different decision.
The Edmonton Journal account of the City Council meeting indicated that the City had plans for lowering the boulevard. On a check with Mr. MacDonald the City Engineer, no directive or plans to carry out. this boulevarding to grade been lodged with him in which case it could conceivably another twenty years before operations begin as afore stated in this brief. It is the contention of the signees of this brief that first things should come first. As heavy equipment required to the boulevard to grade it could conceivably cost the taxpayer much more due to broken curbing or having to do equipment work by hand should curbing and. paving be done first. Another factor which should be noted is that present planned alignment of curb projects 19 ft. at the east corner of the block instead of the previous 17 ft. which was intended to line up with the 17 ft. boulevard projection on the east side of the intersection of 53rd St;. This would cause a. projection of 2 ft. coming from east to west which would create a hazard. This again appear to be an attempt to void interference with encroachments on the east end of the block and if so it would tend to belie the City's intention to lower boulevard to grade.
In summary we wish to point out the salient factors of this brief:
1. Signees of the brief have obeyed all rules and regulations as laid down by the City.
2 . Encroaching owners failed to ascertain and adhere to these regulations.
3. In 1953 first attempt to install curb, City failed to keep faith by laying curb line in such a manner as to condone irregularities.
4. Despite Signees repeated protests and Mayors avowed intention that irregularities would be removed in the fall of 1953 (as per Mr. Wilson's report) the fall passed. without any such action.
5. Fall 1953. Although city advised they would honor our adherence to regulations they allowed and condoned a questionnaire to be circulated to property owners in the block by the encroaching owners in another attempt to circumvent city requirements.
6 . Spring 1954. Despite petition and without warning and contrary to advice given at meeting in November 1953, notice to pave and curb advertised in paper.
7. Proposed curb line again laid down in order to circumvent encroachments.
8. Again despite protest, Mayors' advice and Commissioners' letter covering removal and lowering to grade violating property owners up to and after date set made no attempt to remove personal works thus indicating knowledge not available to signees.
9. Fall 1954. Citys' half-hearted and partial lowering of grade on only two encroachments; under direction of encroaching property owners once more emphasizing the condoning of violations and undoubted misuse of expensive City equipment to benefit wrong doers.
10. Spring 1955. Despite insufficient signatures on petition City again advertised curbing and paving.
11. Regardless of all that has gone before we believe this whole matter was presented to City Council in such a way that all the facts were not made known thus we suggest unduly influencing Council to approve paving in spite of our protest.
12. Having suffered these conditions since 1952 and in the name of justice and to avoid discrimination, and that adherence to City rules be honored, we pray that Council will see fit to pass motion that the work of correcting the irregularities in the block be carried out prior to curbing and paving.
13. The signees of this brief wish it understood they do desire curbing and paving but a lowering of the boulevard must be a prerequisite.
Signature of A S Traynor
We the undersigned do hereby petition the City of Edmonton to set aside the work of curbing on Ada Blvd. Between 55 Street and 53 Street as last indicated to the residents concerned, i.e. twenty-five feet deep and parallel to property line from 55 Street to a point in line with the West boundary of the property known as 5318-Ada Blvd., and thence on a bias to 53 Street and only seventeen feet out from the property line thereby creating a frontage irregularity. It is contended that this is not in the best interests of the block as a whole sacrificing east half of the block to the benefit of the West half and allowing individual property irregularities to remain.
It is furhter contended that as it is necessary to run the curb on a bias to allow the roadway to conform to the natural contours of the river bank the curb must run on a bias for the entire length of the block. 55 Street to 53 Street thus distributing the angle equitably to all concerned giving a desirable uniformity to the entire block. This will also assist in avoiding unnecessary expense in considerable fill on the river bank should it become necessary to establish a sidewalk at some future date.
It is hereby agreed by the undersigned that should the City be willing to establish the curb on the overall uniform bias line as contended this petition will become null and void and the City proceed forthwith with this curbing.
Signed by
A.S. Traynor
Florence Traynor
Lot 21 Blk 37
Harold Howard
Susan J Howard
Lot 20 Blk 37
E.M. Maloney [?]
Jessie Maloney [?]
Lot 17 Blk 37
Margaret C Allan
W. Allan
W 26' of Lot 8
E 39' of Lot 9 Blk 37
W.W. Butchart
M.J. Butchart
Lot 19 Blk 37July 2014:
In the epistle above the phrase, "It may take 20 years for the changes to take place... can be found. By my calculations it is around 60 years and nothing has changed!
Some will wonder was it all worth it...it seems likely there were some ill-feelings between the neighbours although George Traynor indicates they all finished up being the best of friends. Perhaps only one is still alive!
What was this all about... as a long time enforcement man it all seems clear to me...The initial owners had followed the rules to the letter, as set out by the City, and were perturbed when others neighbours flouted these rules and the City was not prepared to enforce its owns rules! And, to add salt to the wound they wanted the 'obeying' neighbours to tell the 'disobeying' neighbours they were in the wrong and had to rectify their mistakes. Hmmm!
Oh, yes, the photograph... it shows for the most part the curbing on the south side of Ada Boulevard, sans a sidewalk. Perhaps a good place for one from say 50 Street to 76 Street...No? Let's curb that idea!
July 2021: Shows the new curbing... this picture and the one below show [November 2021]some of the changes that have taken place on the Boulevrard.
