Source:Closing-up-an-alley
"Closing up an alley: Property owners object and take their protest to court." Pittsburgh Commercial Gazette, Mar. 18, 1896, p. 4. Newspapers.com 85429627.
James W. Tygard and others filed an appeal yesterday from the city ordinance vacating Iron alley from second avenue to Greenough street, Sixth ward. The ordinance was passed by councils on the petition of H. Lloyd's Sons & Co. The appellants claim this firm owns no property abutting on the alley. A rule was granted on the city of Pittsburgh to show cause why the ordinance should not be quashed.
Mr. Tygard, one of the property owners whose property is affected by the ordinance vacating Iron alley, said last evening to a Commercial Gazette reporter: "Iron alley is at the end of First avenue, beyond Try street. It affords the only egress from the upper end of First avenue to Second avenue, except by a roundabout way. Closing up that alley would necessitate my going 1,000 feet to get out or in to my property. Philip Flinn presented the petition for vacation of the alley. It was signed only by the Lloyds. Rea & Co., the Pittsburgh Gas Company, the Baltimore & Ohio and other property owners signed a remonstrance. The petition to court against discontinuing the alley is on the ground that the petition for discontinuing was not signed by a majority of property owners. I know that prior to the late election Philip Flinn canvassed the mill. The property owners don't want to be shut out solely for one firm's accommodation."
