Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-07-09
A PLAIN STATEMENT.


mento concerning the administration of
city affairs, and made mistake. 1t
would not advise voters to vote "yes" to-
day if it were not deeply impressed with
the wisdom, economy and necessity for
such action.
The question to be voted upon to-day is
very simple one, and we can make it
clear in few words:
The general and immediate improve
ment of the streets of the city is a con-
fessed need. No man is to be found who
prefers mud street to a grayeled one.
The latter conserve public health, better
drainage, enhanced values, good repute of
the city and the comfort and enjoyment of
the people.
Under the Vrooman law, passed in 1885,
the cost of improving streets must be as
sessed per front foot against adjacent
property. Formerly in this city con-
struction of intersections of streets was
paid for out of fund assessed against all
taxpayers, whether property or
not. The Vrooman Act broke up that
policy, unfortunately, and since then the
cost of intersection work is also charged
against the owners of street realty. Int
during that time little work has been
done.
Intersection work about equals one
fourth the cost of street improvement in
the blocks on either side. We are 10 vote
to-day whether we will return to the old
system by new method. That is to saw.
1t is proposed to pay one-fourth the cost of
street work out of general fund. Thus
all who use Streets all who are benefited
by city advancement, will bear share of
the cost of attaining greater prosperity.
But it is not wise or desirable to levy
taxes directly to raise this one-fourth. 1t
is therefore proposed to authorize the Trus-
tees to issue certificates of credit, in all
not to exceed 100000, at low rate of
interest. These are to run twenty years,
but only as many will be issued each sea-
son as are needed to pay one-fourth the
cost of such street work as the people
choose to have carried on. The money
cannot possibly be used for any other pur-
pose than that specified in the bond and
ordinance.
We now pay from $4,000 to $4,000
each year to patch up the dirt streets that
each winter renders impossible and in
capable Of carrying off the drainage water.
The sum we thus expend is greater than
the interest on the certificates of credit or
bonds each year to be used with as much
of the principal as is to be paid added.
Hence to issue the bonds will result in two
desirable things, to wit: First enable
property owners to build good streets;
second, pay for the street work thus ac-
complished out of the general wealth to
the extent of one-fourth the cost, and
leave the city in pocket handsome sur
plus over the old cost of annually rounding
up dirt streets.
Besides being money-making and tax
reducing proposition, therefore, it will
give us all the other benefits that flow
from good streets and free communication
with the country. 1t will give extended
labor to large number of men, employ
more teams than now or ever before en-
gagged in street work, and will thus stimu-
late building, trade and general pros
perity.
1t puts no improper burdenon the rising
generation, for under the law we must pay
one-twentieth of the sum we borrow each
year. But, as has been said, the figures of
official expenditure show that the sum
paid for rounding and patching street of
mud each year will more than equal that
one-twentieth and the interest on the loan.
So that we will really get the neu street tcork
arih less outlay than il ire retain the Old
style OF mud streets, and the new streets will
inure as much to the benefit of those to
use them ten, and twenty years hence, as
to those of us of to day.
This is certainly simple and under
standable statement, and with it before
him no man can say that he does not COM
prehend the proposition. In brief re-
sumo it is this: By voting '1yes' to-day
you will secure improved streets at less
cost than it will require to retain the old
streets and patch them up each year.
If man needed new house and it
could be shown to him that the rent he
pays for the old one viii give him a new
one and leave him balance over, and that
he can secure the new house without ex-
penditure Of any more capital than he
monthly paws for rent and taxes and re-
pairs and other costs, would he not be an
unwise person to refuse to take the new
dwelling, and adhere to the old one at a
greater outlay? Yet that is precisely
what the opponents of the proposition of
to-day advise.