The Topeka state journal., 1903-04-04
SHALL We BUY wArERwoRxs ?

SHALL WE BUY WATERWORK ?
The people of Topeka have already
expressed themselves as being over
whelmingly in favor Of the city owner
ship of waterworks. They voted some
years ago to issue S44O, 900 in bonds to
build an entirely new waterworks sys-
TEN.
Now the proposition comes up in a
new form. The building of a new plant
seems out of the question. Owing to
the increase in cost of materials, it
could not be done for $40. 900. and if it
could. the expense to the citizens Of
making entirely new connections with
water mains would be tremendous.
The proposition is now to buy the ex-
isting system Of water supply from the
Topeka Water company for the sum of
s62O. 900.
In the minds of most people there are
three possible objections to the PROPOSE
ton. They are:
First, is the price too high?
Second, is the city competent to man
age the plant?
Third, is it safe to issue more bonds?
Concerning the first objection, the
price of the plant is a question where
experts differ. When the plant was
appraised, its value was fixed at $780,
600 by some of the experts, and at $780,
600 by others. Since then $50, 900 has
been spent in improving the plant. Af-
ter a long negotiation the company
offered to take $500, 600 for the entire
concern. Attorneys advised the city
that this is probably the lowest price
the city could possibly obtain by con-
demnation proceedings through the
courts. 1t might cost upwards of $780,
900 to endeavor by litigation to force
the company to accept better terms.
The second objection is the one chief
ly urged by the opponents of city own
ership. They admit that the water
company is making a very large in
come under the present management,
but say that the city could not conduct
it economically. In answer to this it is
only necessary to cite the fact that the
city manages the electric light plant,
and does so at a cost of about $50 a
year per light. which is probably the
cheapest system of electric street light
ing in the whole United States.
The safety of adding $500 900 to the
city's Indebtedness is another objection
which has no foundation. 1t hinges
largely on the question of whether the
city can manage the plant wisely. If
it can do this, it will save enough and
take in enough as profits on the in
vestment to pay all the interest on the
bonds. and create a sinking fund to
pay the principal. Ii will make the
plant pay for itself, and there viii not
be one cent of extra burden on the tax
payers of the city.
There are so many arguments in
favor of city ownership that they can
only be briefly mentioned. One is that
it will be the people who control the
water, and not a corporation which has
no interest in the city except to get all
the profit it can out of the inhabitants.
There will be plenty Of water. and it
will be to tine interest Of the city to see
to it that it is good water. The city
will have enough water so that it can
wash the streets regularly, and keep
the town clean. 1t will eventually ex-
tend the mains to all the dry districts
in the city, and it will make water
cheap. These are a few of the chief
arguments in favor of city ownership.
The eastern owners Of the water COM
pany would like to have the PROPOSE
ton to buy the plant voted down. They
have a good investment and know it.
What do the people who pay the freight
think about it?