The San Francisco call., 1896-02-26
SPRING VALLEY SECRETS
Max Pepper Says Supervisors
Fell Repeatedly Through
BribeS.
Discussion on Public Ownership By
the Union fer Practical
Progress.

The Union for Practical Progress met
last evening at 621 OFarrell street and
heard James S. Reynolds and Morrison L.
Swift talk upon municipal ownership"
Mr.. Reynolds said he was against mu-
| nlcipal ownership unless it could be done
by taking the ground rent to pay for it, be-
cause if the principle resulted in saving,
the landlord only would receive the bene-
fit. Better water service, just like better
streetcar service, he held, would simply
raise the rent. Consumers of water would
gain nothing, while the owners of the land
would.
| Mr.. Swift said that public ownership
could be secured through a political and
social organization. The people should
unite on broad basis to bring about a
social revolution peacefully, and il that
wete not done Mr.. Swift feared the revo-
luton would come with bloodshed. The
desired end could not be gained by the
single tax. in which he declared there was
not one tenth the interest as there was in
socialism in America.
Mr.. Hansborough of Castrovilla stated
by request that proposition had been
made to supply San Francisco with "a
! 600, 900 to SO COO, 900 gallons of water daily
from Castroville for $500 900. This in
cluded plant, pipes and delivery of the
water. The amount now paid to the water
company by the City would in ten years
pay off the bonds on this estimated sum
and the City would have free water be-
! sides. The plant could be operated for 1C
per cent of what the Spring Valley Com
pany claims to expend in that direction.
Max Pepper was present in the role o1
! listener, but the chairman asked him fol-
an opinion on the question OF municipal
ownership.
81 agree with the gentlemen, that this
!. City should have its own water works" he
said. 81 have studied all these questions
from practical point of view-I have NO
! time for theorizing. So | can only present
! practical views on the practical question
of San Francisco owning its own water
works.
1.-The water rates of this City are I'M
! questionable higher than in any other
| city Of the United States, excepting New
! Orleans, where, l understand, they are
about equal to ours. New Orleans suffers
[ from private ownership.
The greatest temptation to the Board
T.. of Supervisors has come from the Spring
| Valley Company. 1t should be removed
| from the local legislative body. Time and
again we have elected men upon their
pledges that they would perform their
duty to the people, and they fell under
! this temptation.
1.-THE Spring Valley Water Company
! has watered its stock to an extent out of
all reason. The works never cost so much
as it claims. In its statement to the Su-
pervisors we are informed that some
twenty odd millions are invested in the
works. In the Assessors statement the
total amount is somewhere between one
and two millions.
''For practical purposes we may say
| 81 SOC, coo. This clearly indicates that they
are not telling the truth. The City should
have bought the water works from the
Spring Valley Company years ago, but
now, with watered stock and fictitious
values placed upon the property, purchase
| is out of the question.
"If the gentleman from Castroville can
supply the City for 81 500, 900 it is a reve-
lation, and l for one am certainly in favor
of giving this question support. l am in
favor of San Francisco owning its own
water works"