The San Francisco call., 1896-02-16

its petition for special election to decide
whether or not San Francisco shall own its
own water and light works.
The communication was sent to the
] board some time ago, and the union has
been waiting patiently for an answer. but
in vain. The committee In charge of the
matter says:
SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 13, 1896.
To the Hon. Board ST Supervisors, San Fran
ciSc0-GENTLEMEN: On September 1S, 1895, we
| filed with you a petition asking that special
election be called, at which the question OF
public ownership OF water and light works
should be su omitted to the voters of San
Francisco
1t was referred by you to your Finance Com
mittee (Messrs. Taylor, Hobbs and Benjaminl.
We have attended regular meeting of your
Finance Committee in December, and ex-
hibited the Endorsements and signatures of
5000 citizens and nine organizations. We have
filed with you memorial showing that water
rates in San Francisco average 500 per year for
the same service furnished in other cities
(under public ownership for $11 63: $11 63
per year is the average tate of thirty-fye cities
in the United States which operate public
water works.
We call your attention to the fact that San
Francisco is the only city of its size in the
United States which does not own public water
works. We reminded you that this question
has always received the required majority
when submitted to the voters of other cities.
We gave statistics and estimates from Colonel
Mendell's report (when he was employed by
the City, showing that sufficient water sup
ply could be obtained for less than 81 900 900.
We referred you to the annual sworn sta te-
ments of the Spring Valley Water Company,
which exhibited the startling facts that their
yearly operating expenses are less than
100000, while their yearly revenue is over
81 800, 900. Their sworn statement for 1895
reafirms these figures.
We have given you facts and figures, taken
from official sources, which clearly show that
the Inhabitants of San Francisco are subjected
to an enormous unnecessary and unjust tax by
1 Io1l
ance). The action of the people everywhere
| shows that they approve of public ownership
| OF these utilities, and we have shown that
| cheaper rates are charged in the cities that
| own their water supplies and that public op-
| Grafton of water works is more economical,
under ell circumstances, to the public than
| private ownership.
| The force of these facts should induce every
| conscientious and honest representative of the
| people to Immediately take steps to abolish
this form OF taxation of their constituents by a
| few private individuals.
Regarding light rates, we gave you statistics
! proving that electric lights are furnished now
one-half former charges by private corpora
tions. More recent reports publish TO the
world that while you paying $15 per
month for electric lights, Alameda, under
| public ownership, secures the same light for
| less than So per month, and Santa Cruz the
same light for less than Sd per month. In gas
rates similar discrepancy can be shown.
! Gentlemen, we very regretfully record the
Indifference manifested by you to this popular
appeal Y,u have on the other hand been
! quick even to protect q rich corporation from
| the consequences of its illegal acts. When the
Market-street Railway Company early last
year began to run over and kill our fellow-citi-
zens and children it developed that they were
violating ordinance 2O72 by not providing
| their cars with tenders es required by law
| Public Indignation began to be manifested,
| and steps were about to be taken by the Civic
! Federation to bring the officers of that COM
! pany before the courts. You Immediately re-
| pealed that ordinance, and have to this date
given license, without penalty, to the street
| railway companies to main or kill without
| protecting the public by the use of proper
| tenders.
| Were you asked to repeal the old law by the
people or by the streetcar magnates? 1t is pre-
sumed that they requested the change when
threa tened with prosecution and 1t is a very
sad circumstance that you have shown SO
much alacrity to obey the wishes of these re-
puted corruptionsts and refuse to pay any at
tention to request that you must know en-
bodies the prayer OF the masses. The only rea-
son offered us by the members of your Finance
Committee (Messrs. Taylor, HOBBS and Benja-
mln) for not recommending the granting of
our petition was that funds were not available
for holding the special election This seems to
be only an excuse, because the annual appro-
priations for election expenses for the current
year are $32, 900 (Municipal Order No. 2905,
penscs of the Election Commissioners and
Registrars effice are otherwise provided for by
the appropriation Of $1,000 in the same order
We have furnished you, in our memorial, with
an estimate from the Registrars Office to the
effect that the special election could be held at
an expense of less than $4,000.
We beg to inquire why the. $32, 900 already
appropriated and in the City treasury is not
available? Or why some part of the appro-
priation for urgent necessity" 1886, ,OOO) could
not be used for the purpose of relieving our
City from one ore more of the "octopi' that
are strangling it to decay. Or why part of the
$1s5 900 which you appropriated for "water
and municipal purposes" could not be used
for some permanent good instead of for filing
the Golfers of few who have been given the
privilege OF taxing this community.
We now request some formal action either.
for or against the expressed desire of these
petitioners for the calling of a special election
at which the question of public ownership of
water and light works shall be submitted to
the voters.
We beg to remind you again that we have
dealt only with facts and figures taken from
official reports We hold up before you and our
fellow citizens these statistics which exhibit
how .grievously and unwarrantedly they are
taxed by you for the benefit of few wealthy
monopolists. We also exhibit the difference NJ
treatment which you accord to popular de-