The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1901-11-10
As to Annexation.
COMMUNICATED.
Citizens OF Richrno1lt1:

10 the Citizens 5of Richmond:
After conyersing with many people l
am at a loss to understand why the
question of extending the corporate linz |
| Its of Richmand is agitated at this time.
certainly there is no general demand for
fait, but. to the contrary, the impression
seems to prevail that until Richmond ts
financially able to improve the miles ana
| miles of unimproved streets within her
present borders. and provide city con-
Veniences for many of her people. who
have been paying city taxes for thirty
years without improvements OF any kind.
that Richmond should not embark In
larger undertakings. In a matter OF
such great Importance to each and every
class of citizens,sI do not think it would
| be aniss for the public servants to as
| certain the will of the people before conf
! hitting their constituents to Hne OF
/ action that may prove difficult to justify
and of questionable permanent benefit II
successful.
This matter concerns the people OF
/ Richmond deeply, and they should De
consulted. unless it is that to consult
them upon q public question might es-
i tablish a new precedent. and create trout
| besomc expectations for the future.
Bat if the sense Of the people has not
/ been ascertatned, and they do not demand
! corporate extension. whence the origin
l
! of the city fathers who, if continued
in Office, will doubtless enjoy the priyi-
/ lege of dispensing increased patronage.
| and laying out larger gums. arising from
the sale of bonds issued on account of
| newly acquired territory. and taxes col
lected t1rerefron? An innocent ambition.
to be sure, but nevertheless it does seen!
/ that it might be wei to observe at least
| IL prudent pretencc of consideration Tor
| the rights of the people.
| st has been boldly stated that the peo-
| pie of Henrico have no right to be heard
or this subject, and that they are not
to be lsked anything about 1t IfuiS d
summary way of disposing of the inter-
! ests of thirty thousand people, ana
emacks more, OF irr;,erialism than is con-
siatent with the self-sovernmsnt OF
| free people.
Can it be possible that the owners II
this scheme propose to treat she peopie
/ of Richmond with no more consideration
than they have expressed for the peopie
| Of Hen:ico? How use doth breed g hanit
! in a man But the people OF Henrlco
.re NOT willing to see their property
| rights violated. and have their govern
mental functions u.urped by those whose
capacity for good government can De at
tested by no better specimen OF success
than the condition OF Richmond adofas s,
! r take it. OF course, that the speciSi
| committee has full authority 20 iliNuiie
into all matters pertaining to anneAatioLl'
and in considering the additions 10 a.
| sessed values and population. that 1t -
/ also within their province to consluer
| any matter likely to stand as an oostacie
! between these acquisitions ana the CITY ,
| srasn Two OF the principal opjectioiis -.
| that the people of Henrico have 70 oeils
annexed are to be found In the llila'' 'h;'
! condition of Richmond and In the file.tl-
/ DDS prevailing in the management oi ''e-
/ affairs.
II is only recently that we have seen
/ r,1h,ished fattering accounts OF ken
! mond's splendid financial CONDITION..
/ Whether this conclusion is arrived at py
! comparing Richmond's present necessi-
| ties with her necessities IN the t etiiote
mast or bv treating as an asset the anti
iinated privilege of levying tribute upon
| her nieghbors is question. as Is also the
correct Interpretation OF what is spien-
! did financial condition. One man might
| consider himself rich with hundred COL
| lars. while another might pc poor Win viii q,
/ hundred thousand. There Is no recosni.eu
standard by which the splendid conaitioil
| of anything can be measured save pF
| comparison and as correct relative IDEAS
| are only TO be determined by comparison
| it is not only fitting. but necessary wa !
! Richmond should be compared win pros
! DerorrS welI-managed cities IN ofoer itis. |
| we may ascertain how inich OF LIS
/ splendid financial condition is real ana no"
| much ina ginary. This may not be pleas
ant emplovment for the special commit
| fee vet If carried, to it's legitimate con-
| clusion 1t may prove profitable TO the TAX
| payer. -
By common consent Atlanta seems to
| have been selected as .:.e stahadIu ny
which to measure Richrnon.. 1t IS lmina-
| terial whether this selection is due TO the
| fact that both are Southern cities OF near
| " same size or whether IL is due TO the
| fact that in Atlanta we recognize the ele-
| ments of a metropolis. which the pru-
| dence and enterprise of her people are
apidy, developing into realization WHICH
| eycites our admiration. while 1t eXceiS our
| achievements. However this may be, II
useful lessons can be learned from At
| larta. the sooner we address ourselves TO
| the task the better
The population of Atlanta is S9,Si22:: that
that of Richmond. S5.050- The area of At
/ lanta is 1910 acres; that OF RlchIc,one,
1926 acres according to the Dlspatchl.
The assessed values in Atlanta aggregate
| S53I777lT: the assessed values in Rich
| mond'S aggregate S66, I20.949. Atlanta
annual income from taxes on real ana peg
sonal property is 1854. ri; Richmond's an
nual income from the same source is
S9::$i. O93 showing an annual balance III
| RichmondS favor of S269.3i2
Thus it will be seee that Richmond. with
/ fewer people to care for and only half the
territory to improve, has an annual IN
come greater than Atlantan's by more
than quarter of million dollars from
this one source alone. These facts justify
the people of Richmond in expecting as
many improvements as the people OF At
lanta enjoy and as little debt as they are
burdened with, but these expectations are
/ not realized.
We are told that Atlanta maintains q
/ police force of 161 men. Richmond l0';
Atlanta. 1CS fremen. Richmond 6S: At
lanta has 1855 fire hydrants, Richmond
624 Atlanta 50 miles of granite paved
streets, Richmond II miles: Atlanta ~
miles of sewers. Richmond % miles
4 And tell YOU that Richmond mas
bonded debt of s7,227.3 1888. while Atlantas
/ total bonded debt is only 2,92ls0o. a
tfife more than forty per cent. OF Rlch-
mond's bonded debt Richmond collects
4 n tax of OLA or S14 per thousand on actual
values; Atlanta collects a tax of ol2o Oh
/ a fifty per cent. assessment. or $50 per
thousand on actual values. Richmond
i bonded debt is equal to II per cent. OF
the actual value o. her real estate: AT