The San Francisco call., 1901-11-26
MUST SEPARATE
BOND ELECTIONS
City Attorney Says They
Cannot Be Held on
Same Day.
Bills for Improvements and
Utilities Are to Be
Revised.

City Attorney Lane filed an opinion yes
terday with the Board of Supervisors adj
vising that the ordinances concerning the
acquisition of public utilities cannot be
submitted at the same election as the
question of bonds for public improve
ments. Lane says in his opinion:
Neither in my estimation can both of the
gether, but it seems from section Of Article
XII of the charter that each must be sub
one utility. 1 have heretofore advised you that
the question of bonds for the various public
system, parks, sehoolhouses and hospitals
might be submitted at the same election, but
the question of public utilities has not been
heretofore presented. Those proceedings are
under a different section of the charter, and
that section requires submission of each at a
separate election
Acquisition of Utilities.
The ordinances declaring that the pub
lie interest demands the acquisition of the
Geary-street road and its extensions, the
Tuolumne River water supply, the con-
struction of sewer system, hospital
building the construction of nineteen
schoolhouses. the acquisition of a site for
a new school building, additions to six
school buildings now constructed ana
that lands contained in the block bounded
by Seventh, Folsom, Sherman and Har-
rison streets; block bounded by Washing
ton, Cough, Sacramento and Lagunit
streets; blocks bounded by Dolores,
L
be acquired for park and playground pur-
poses, and the block bounded by Hayes,
Grove, Larkin and Polk streets, which
were passed to print at the last meeting,
were re-referred to the Committee on Pub
lie Utilities and Judiciary, which will meet
on Wednesday and Friday afternoons for
the purpose of revising the ordinances in
accordance with the City Attorneys opin-
ion that they were not legally drafted.
The opinion further says:
One of the bills states that the plans re-
ferred to therein for furnishing water from
mitted to the people for their approval"
assume that there is but one general plan, and
that no question of presenting to the voters
various alternatives is contemplated. In case
this assumption is not correct kindly advise
native plans may be so presented is de-
serving of careful consideration and is not to
be passed upon offhand at this time. For these
reasons 1 believe it would be advisable to pro-
ceed no further under this bill
Street Railroad System.
Bill No sos deals with municipal street rail-
road systems, 1t recites thai ''the plans and es-
Inmates of the costs of reconstructing. the
Geary-steet railroad and constructing the ex-
tentions thereof planned by the City Eu-
gineer, with the exception of unessential
changes in the route suggested, are hereby Sc
pie for their approval" In the report of the
City Engineer there are six different pro-
jects'' separately and distinctly set forth with
separate estimate for each, the estimates
of different scheme varying as much as
$70O, CO., The bill does not state which OF these
six is the one selected II it was your inten-
ton not to select one, but TO submit all, II
possible, to the electors, make the same sug-
gestion as Just made regarding the water works
bill, namely, that the matter be submitted to
me for full consideration whether such a course
is possible. My present inclination is towerd
the belief that such q. course not being dis
tinctly warranted by the charter, would be un-
safe. If but one plan is - be submitted, it
would be advisable to designate that one in
the bill.
I would also suggest that if by the language
s'the Geary-street Railroad and the extensions
thereof as planned by the City Engineer you
mean one of the six entire projects set for tn
in the report mentioned, it would be advisable
to use more comprehensive language, mas
much as the railroads planned comprise 10. 81
miles of track, while the Geary-street road
extends some 1-3 miles only, the balance be-
ing new road, and moreover not properly
termed extensions of that road, it in
at right angles to the GearY-street system. For
the reasons mentioned l consider this bill IN
formal and insufficient
For New Schoolhouses.
In the bill providing for the acquisition Of
least six new lots of land for school purposes,
while the bill mentions but one. And speak
ing generally of the proposed new school
houses and school lots it seems to me that
the several schools (known now by familiar
names) for which 1T is desired to build new
structures and in the instances of new schools
on lots to be purchased the general district
i'm which they are to be located, likewise the
names of the school buildings to be added to
or repaired.
1t appears from the foregoing that neither
of the public utilities measures nor those con-
cerned with Improvements generally are IN a
condition to proceed al the present time.