Little Falls weekly transcript. (Little Falls, Morrison Co., Minn.) 1894-19??, 1899-03-21
MUNICIPAL OWNERSHIP.
\ PROPAGATION that Has Many
Sides IN It's Practlcal ".
sa Application.

Every cttSxtn AMI laxpn yer should
br ID,efeA,tn IL hr5 squestiOnS Ia
vOivrh IL city government. On,
question thnt has atirar.p.i much
alttnt'uli il thar Oimuntc,pAl owner
ship III such iusiivu,lnna IN tight HDG
!. water pin,,ts me tiarirabi!,y III a
city ernblshlhg such . plant must
depend ~, -,rc,al =. .n,ifttnns =.
About ten years ngT Lit'l.
FAN. had about one third it, prrsan
ppJ,uis,tn art the taxable vni0a.
ti.,n' ,vas $751;, 600. nxainst "ver 81 mo
0(AIYn,w Tire bonded In ,irbt+.inesl
was. then, about 10 per cent Of III.
valuation
Tht people then desired an elect rit
1ightaDd water wNrks ,,lan,, hut
thu. financial condition ~ the ciCy
was such thar no one adv Gated Or
favored al ATTEMPT I" hnild the
plants by the city, and there was nm
apparent unanimous desire to secure
THIN through private enterprise
Municipal Ow ntrship was no new
theory. st. Paul. Minneapolis, st.
Cloud and m her Minnesota cities
owned their alter works plants
The rssin cities wer." then strong
enough 10 successfully conduct their
plants. but st. Il"nd found herself
unable IT, make IN. invts.me
needed to extend and upruve the
plant. nuh municipal ownership was
abandoned the city. after a trial
of munt.ipa, ownership. , sold The
plant t. a private COMPANY Our
neighbour 10 the nrrth, Brainer1.
soon after acquired an electric light
plan, that mad been hMi't hy .,rivate
enterprise but " hich had never l.et.n
q finAnc.a)' 5su 'cess. After running
thu plant 4 few years tue people Of
Brainprd voted to sell the plant to
C. N, Parker. but Mr. Parker CON-
clu Ell not 10 take it. although the
price wa. comparatively low. In
mel her of these cities does the
municipality own the water works
pam, st Cloud d"es not own the,
electric light or gas plant. and IN
Brainr~d It was nut II few years aE"
that the people vOte'i IT, saIl to u
citizru her lighting plant It IL not
here nrgu"tl that the people 1T those
cities mr.. wise iu their p',sitiUn on
any IT these ma tiers. hut the above
arr the conditions ut those places.
In Little Falls t ere was q
practically unanimous desire for
light snd wa ter pla ut. ten years agn,
IA ,st,Ov. stated. The only way I'd
gsl them was t. indnce private
capttaf to bni;d them II ! mistak4
wa: made the people. ~ thr city were
parties to 1t II there had been ap-
parent OpD'Isitton to the plan. the
private investment would not have
been made. ami the city would Kot
along without the i'm prOvpments un-
til such time as municipal cOnstruc-
ton and operation would meet pub
lie approval, At the time the ar
ranGements were considered TOR pri.
vate construction the city was
bonded for 25.O00 in its own name,
and had been paving a certain share
of bond intere>t for little Falls
town. Belle Prairie and Pike Creek,
and also It's share of town bridge
bonds as q part Of its bonded In
debtedness. City hall BOMBS and
sewer bonds were also ted.
Another. obligation was the pay
meut for Ave years Of the taxes ON
certain manufacturing plants that
might he induced to come to the
CITY, So 1t Ii PLAIN to- see why the
municipal construction Of IN ex-
tensive light and water plant was
beyond the possibilities The city
-7.-sr-Rrs-aaszz=s