The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1897-08-31
TAXES ARE ALREADY TOO HIGH.
Two Noble Parks, Golden Gate
and the Preside, Ample
for the City.
COURSE OF 1.-THE CALL" APPROVED.
Sentiment Universal That No Addi-
tional Burdens Should Be Placed
on Real Estate.
COURSE OF 1.-THE CALL" APPROVED.

The fact is disclosed by numerous inter
views that the proposition to spend a
large sum OF public money to buy land
for a park at the Mission is not popular
or desirable enterprise. Taxpayers frankly
assert that the tracts OF land offered are
not suitable and that the prices mentioned
are enormously high. For example, it is
said that one tract of land offered for
$500 is not worth more than $l00, 900
and is assessed for only $53, 900.
Ex-NEayOr H. B. Pond: There
is no call for the purchase of land for a
park at the Mission. The park facilities
supplied by the Golden Gate Park are &C.
cessible to the people residing at the Mis-
sion. 1t would be a great mistake for the
City to embark IN the business of buying
more land for a park or to use the public
funds to establish a geological garden.
THE Calls course IN opposing the scheme
will merit pu bic concentration"
Irving VI. Scott. president
Union Iron Works: "One large
central park is fine feature and small
squares throughout the City are attractive
and useful. Lots OF things are more
needed than park at the Mission and a
ZOO The people residin at the Mission
have ready access to Golden Gate Park.
1t belongs to them as much as 1t does 10
any others. The carfa-e from the Mis-
sion to the park is only cents. All the
money which the City can afford to spend
on park extension at present should be
applied TO the improvement of Golden Gate
Park. The CALLS position is correct and
the taxpayers will heartily approve the
course of the paper"
A. B. NCCreery. capitalist:
'The tracts of land offered not sul.-
able and the prices asked are much above
the value OF the land. Again, park at
the Mission is not needed. San Francisco
has two noble parks already-the Golden
Gate Park and the Preside. These two
parks embrace over $500 acres of land. No
city in the United States is better equipped
in this regard than San Francisco. The
proposition to purchase more land is pre-
mature. The policy of the municipal gov
eminent should be to reduce the taxes as
far as possible. The burden i'm posed on
real estate is already excessive. The
single tax theory seems to be coming into
practical effect judging from the way
taxes are imposed on real estate. am
heartily glad that The CALL has spoken
out so clearly on this subject, and I am
sure that It's course will be approved by
the taxpayers of the City. The people at
the Mission, as well as those residing in
40
course"
William SprOuIe, assistant
general freight agent South
ern Pacific h abroad Company:
CAN the money that the CITY can
afford to spend on park Improvement
should be expended on Golden Gate Park.
The people residing at the Mission will
get as much benefit from the expenditure
as the residents of any other section OF
the City. In my judgment it is not good
policy to purchase land for another park. "
Arthur w. Moore, real es-
tate dealer: ~ doubt very much II
the people at the Mission really desire
that public money should be invested in
land for another park. The residents OF
that quarter OF the City have as free access
to Golden Gate Park as any other citizens.
A scent tare is all that is charged from
the Mission to Golden Gate Park. The
proposition TO buy additional land for
park purposes ought not TO be enter
tanned. The CALL is right in resisting the
scheme"
X. Id. Perry. acting secretary
of the Chamber of Commerce:
'IHE CALL Is right IN the position 1t takes
with regard 10 the creating OF park and
geological garden in the Mission. We
have one park which is a very attractive
place, and the City is not wealthy enough
10 support another at the present time.
If any money is to be spent for such a pur-
pose let 1T be spent in making the Golden
Gate Park still more attractive. At the
present time tnis one big pleasure ground
is sufficient. and it is in easy reach OF
those who desire fresh air and recreation,
and it can be reached from all parts of the
City for 5 cents. While / favor the 20
illogical features suggested in this move
ment, still l do not think that the City
would be justified in spending so large a
sum as would be required to purchase the
land and then improve it. If the City has
any money TO spend it shoul1 spend it for
some OF the things that would n axe Ia
telial improvement in the line OF a uetter
sewerage system, better street pavements,
etc. am not against the Injuries of life,