The morning call., 1893-01-07
OVER IN ALAMEDA.
Opposition to Division of the County


Is Universal.
In the city Of Alameda there is an inten-
sijy Of public sentiment against union oil
any kind with Oakland that admits of nc
mlsconstruction.
The idea of a division Of Alameda County
without being involved Ia some way or
other ia an aiDalgamation with the city OF
Oakland is not allowed house room.
Alameda people are convinced that any
action on the part of the people Of Alameda
County looking to a permanent division
would be certain TO result in their city being
forever lost as a city.
They claim that their geographical posi-
ton necessltates their independence Of any
other city. They are proud Of their city
government, and point out their fine sewer
age pavements. streets, etc, convincing
evidence Of the wisdom of that government.
They are content with their reasonable
rates of taxation. In short, in view of their
present prosperity, they are abundantly
content TO let well enough alone.
Interviews with q nun Der of Alameda
most prominent citizens are herewith given,
and 1t is plainly evident that Alameda is
somewhat opposed TO the scheme:
j. l.. Barber. editor Of the Statesman
You can be certain Of not finding a dozen
men IN Alameda that would advocate the
scheme of a division of this county. Every
body is against It. And why should they
not Oe2 Isn't this city TO be proud of ?
IL Is the pretiiest city OF homes in all the
country. Our streets are superb, our water
system perfect, AID yet our taxes are very
moderate 10 &c into any kind OF a CON-
pact with Oakland means for Alameda to
loose It's identity and become the tall end Of
nothing. We ara very well contente6 10
remain just as va are. / am heartily OPP
posed 10 the plan.
n h. L /
by union with Oakland, but rather every
thing 10 lose. We have managed to build
up beautiful city here and are anxious 70
preserve the isolation in public affairs. /
am not willing 20 entertain for a moment
the plan e having Oakland saddle its debt
on Us. / am against the division.
T. h. Taylor, City Attorney-Jus t such a
scheme as this was agitsted TWO years ago.
Then the plan was discussed with much
Vigor and it Was discovered that fully so
per cent Of our citizens were against it, II
was unpopular then, but not a bit more
than it is now. l am against it. la the
nrst place the management Of large city
such as the proposed one is very unwieldy.
With ms now il is different. We want a
new sewer, for instance. The parties max
ing the request come before NE and file
their application and that night the matter
is acted en-.
During the past year we have put down
seventy HllltS OF macadaHGZeQ road. do
You think this could have been done If we
bad been obliged to take the matter before
the Supervisors OF city OF 100000 people ?
IN the second place we are kept clean from
the corruption hat marks the politics Of a
large city. We draw no party lines in
municipal elections, bnt meet like a big
family and ehot Sc the best men among us.
Our position iselates us from our neighbor-
ing cities and 1 am heartily 10 favor OF pre-
serving AlameQa's autonomy.
Lawyer r b. Tappan-I am decidedly
against any plan that would tack Alameda
10 Oakland. 1t would only be question of
very short time before we would be
completely swallowed up. Alameda would
then only be dumping ground for Oak