Los Angeles daily herald., 1889-10-23

it Looks Like a Ballona Coercion.
After all, when we come to critically |
search for reasons why the owners of |
large tracts of land that would be bene- |
ftsd by the city sewage, failed to re-
spond to the advertisement of the Coun-
Gil, we have not to 60 far. The adver-
tisement for proposals seems to have
been purposely framed to repel bidders.
Instead Of offering to deliver the sewage
at the boundary line of the city, the en-
tire sewage of the east side was to be de-
livered at the corner of Sixth and Ander-
son streets, a mile and half in a straight
line from the boundary, and much further
when we consider the meanderings Of the
river along which it would have to be
carried. If the Council had wished, in
good faith, to invite bidders to take the
sewage, they would have advertised to
deliver it at points on the boundary line
of the city. Had they done SO, we have
no doubt, the gentlemen who publicly
signifed their intention to take the sew
age would have sent in proposals.. This
kind of hugger-muggering with great
public object of interest is not calculated to
modify the idea in the minds of many
that there is more behind this sewer
question than appears on the sur
face. This, however, is only one
phase Of the very extraordinary
manner in which the city authorities
went about to solve this sewer question.
They not only handicapped the outside
landowners with an unnatural and ex-
pensive point of delivery, but they re-
auired those who should take the sewage
to enter into heavy bonds to take it for
fifty years. Why should any such
monstrous exaction be made? The
sewage of this city in half that time
might be something formidably colossal
to handle, and no man wants to tie down
his estate to contract that might prove
disastrous to his descendants. No man
can say how large city Los Angeles will
be in fifty years, or even in twenty-five
years, and to legislete now upon matter
that will probably present very different
conditions even in few years for nearly
two life times, shows plainly that this
business is not handled in good faith.
A contemporary publishes an interview
with Col. Baker on this subject which
places this point in a very clear and
correct light before the public. He says :
"Why did not put in bid? I'll tell
you. When l came to look at the adver-
tisement / found a stipulation that l
would have to enter into bonds to take
care of the city's sewage for term Of
fifty years. l am not prepared to tie up
those who come after me with any con.
tract which involves possible yet unfor-
seen risks. While could at first use
great deal of water, possibly l could not
use all that might be delivered later on.
Ten or twelve years would be about as
much time as / would feel safe in con-
tracing for the water. The chances of
complications arising in the future are too
great to justify man in entering into
contract binding him and his heirs for
| fifty years. l am in favor of any sewer
system that will not allow the water to
60 to waste. l was in San Francisco
during the sewer bond campaign, and
did not keep track of all the arguments
used for or against the outfall sewer.
came down here just in time to vote.
My own mind is firmly made up that this
sewage water should be utilized and not
thrown into the ocean,"
We venture the assertion that there is
no reasonable man who will not say that
Colonel Bakers objections to fifty-year
contract are sound. Ten years would
certainly be long enough for any prudent
man to agree to assume the responsibility
Of taking the sewage OF this city, and that
is the limit of time that would have been
placed in the proposals if the authorities
had honestly desired responsible bids.
| The public is not to be blinded to the real
merits of this sewer question by this kind
of sleight-of.hand. If the Council is de-
termined, right or wrong, to force the
people into the position that they must
take the scheme to Ballona, already voted
down, or nothing, they have gone the
right way about it.