The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1891-05-08
pEERINc AND PORTLAND,
Reply to the Anonymous Pamphlet in
Opposition to Annexation.
To the Editor of the Press:

To the Editor of the Press:
The arguments against the annexation of
Deering to Portland as stated in the anony-
nous pamphlet of which you gave an alb
stract Tuesday, are of the same extraordin-
airy character as those which were ventilated
In the Argus prior to the vote of last year
and will not bear examination. Let us look
at them in the order in which they are
stated.
In the first place it is alleged that the State
valuation Commission has increased the
valuation of Deering more than that of Port
land, and therefore it must be taken for
granted that such increase is justifable and
the valuation of Deering will be raised i'm
mediately upon its annexation thus causing
an increase In taxation. This is an absolute
non sequitar. 1t is not strange that the State
Commission placed heavy doom upon the
taxpayers Of Deering. For the past three
years the antl-annexationists of the town. in
their anxiety to preserve the opportunity to
hinder the inevitable march Of events, have
iterated and reiterated the allegation that
the valuation Of Deering was way down
down SO low that ten foot pole could not
touch 1t. Is 1t any wonder that when such
allegations are made by citizens of the town
the members of the State Commission should
be Influenced by them?
We are not concerned to defend the action
Of the Commission in placing so heavy a
doom upon the town, but 1t is certain that
owing to Its situation, the town is supposed
to possess more personal property than is
taxable within it. This results from the
fact that Deering is the residence of business
men whose property is largely located in
Portland. One looking over the town and
percelving 1t to be the residence of MANY
wealthy men would easily overlook the fact
tnat large portion OF the property of these
men is taxed In Portland, and would natur-
ally estimate their aggregate wealth as an
integral part OF the actual valuation of the
town. In fact. In popular estimation this
method OF Jud cling applies as well to real
estate from the inference that men ought to
adopted by the author of the pamphlet, who
appears to think that wealth is located
where rich men live.
,Ho,weysr , this question Of doom be
town been merged in the city its rate of in
crease would have merged also, and. accord
ing to the pamphlet, there would have been
saving on valuation Of $2900O0 to the tax
payers Of the town.
The truth is, the valuation of the town is
very high. II the dividing line between the
town and city Is followed it will be found
that adjacent property upon the side of the
town is assessed at higher value than that
upon the city side. A short time ago the
writer took from the records list of actual
sales Of real estate in both places without
knowing the valuation in any case. It
turned out upon comparing prices paid with
the valuation, that the latter was the highest
IN IN, the town. taking the whole list together.
There was more irregularity in valuation in
the town than In the CITY,
You say In your editorial that the author
OF the pamphlet does not give any authority
Tor statement. which Is absolutely without
foundation, that the rate of taxation in the
city will be $23,70 per thousand, but the alb
stract states that "Portland's assessors esti-
mate their rate" at that figure for the coming
year. We leave open the question whether
the pamphlet misstated this as well as other
facts, and quoted the assessors without au-
thority, and IL SO by what term such proceed
ing ought to be designated.
The taxation question ought to be summa-
rized thus: The rate In Portland is constant
at about $40. while in Deering it issclose to
that figure. and has increased with much
regularity from S14 in 1885. The debt of the
city is decreasing, while that of the town is
increasing. What the end will be nobody
can predict. The claim of the annexation
lists is that annexation, by doing away with
the separate machinery of town government,
mitigation Official jealousies (precisely as the
union of the adjacent towns In Boston and
other cities has operated) there can be more
economical expenditure of money, inasmuch
as It will no longer lie in the power of one
section to prevent necessary appropriation
for another section unless 1t has some un-
necessary appropriation for its own; that
better tribunal will be established for the
OF municipal expenditure, and that,
while the men who actually do the work and
furnish the material for the keeping our
streets In condition, and our buildings in re-
pair, will still continue do to so, there will
be change In the methods of superinten-
dence, and better system will give us bet
ter results.
The pamphleteer, with the wordiness
which has so oftenswearied the patience of
Deering town meetings, struggles hard to
make It appear that the residents of the out
or portions of the town will as part of the
city, pay more taxes. because part Of their
department. and sewerage which is no direct |
benefit to them. What folly! There is but
one man in the town who would think of
urging such an agreement. If the tax paid
by the residents of Cobb Lane will go into
a fund from which the salaries of the fire de- |
partment are paid so will the tax paid by the |
First National Bank go into fund from |
which is paid the expense Of the Cobb Lane
school and roads; What difference does it |
make to the few farmers of the town whether |
they are In town or city if their tax is the |
same and their roads and schools are equally |
good, II there is no other consideration. But |
II annexation will increase the prestige, |
stimulate the business and enlarge the trade |
bring increase of population and larger and |
better market for them?
The pamphlet touches upon our need of |
from fire and enunciates the fol- |
lowing remarkable argument "Deering is |
tacics the area Of Portland. To protect Deer |
ing as etectudlty as PortLaud is protected |
would require tlVice as mann engines" Here |
Is logic as is logic. In our simplicity we had |
supposed that much depended on whether |
the buildings stood isolated or near each 9TH |
10 a hRnw with Cka ,s..l
40 vastly more damage upon Fessenden or /
Mechanic streets than upon the river road. |
TO such straits Is the pamphleteer driven /
In his blind opposition to annexation, that |
he seriously urges that 1t would be economi- |
cal for Deering to pay the city $4,000 year to |
send out its engines to our fires. This is a
lair specimen OF his ideas upon the subject |
OF economy. But has he considered that the |
Of our thickly settled territory |
with the FIRE alarm system Is essential to give |
breaks out is 50 important to bring the en-
gines to the spot in season to stop in the be- |
ginning what may develOpe into a great con- |
fagation? If an additional engine is want |
ed by the city in the vicinity of the Union |
Station, can 1t not be SO located as to pro.
tect a. portion of Deering territory also, It |
Is plain that very much less than $4,000 a
year Will meet our wants. Is 1t not equally /
plain that the position of the pamphleteer |
mat In this as in other matters, the interests |
~ sAo sOWA ahu City are 50 interviewer tQaL Il
they can only be controlled by one municipal |
government having jurisdiction of the entire |
The pamphleteer thinks we can discount /
portland IN building sewers. Perhaps we |
can, but does he not know that the sewer on |
Forest Avenue has cost twelve hundred dol |
lars more than 1t would if built by the city? |
Has he observed the present condition of the |
celebrated outlet box?
He touches upon the expense to the citv of |
the police, but does not inform us whether |
the late burglary at Parker's store Indicates |
any need of such protection.
His peculiar logic then spreads itself upon
The subject of streets which he seems TO |
think exist In perfection In Deering. Sun. /
pose he asks some of the numerous bicyfe |
riders who ride upon the sidewalk on Forest /
Avenue to take the street instead. II might /
be better for the unfortunate Pedestrians |
who have been run down by the bicyclists |
and here perhaps a policeman might be use-
fuD but judging from what we have seen.
the riders of the silent steed would find
hard road to travel. He seems to think that |
The city is "out" in some way because ii |
spends so much more per mile upon its
streets than does the town. We should not
expect him to do otherwise. To him street |
IS street, and the same amount of money
ought to be expended per mile upon Kidder |
street as upon Congress street. We are far
from passing indiscriminate censure upon |
th6 streets of Do0rinQ Init IL ia tho on;rior