The San Francisco call., 1905-02-15
WATER IN OAKLAND.

He proposition bond the city of Oakland for nearly
buy theoretical supply undergoing quite efcent
discussion there The Call has always stood for dehn,e
policy respect municipal socialism by public ownership OF public
utilities If the people such ownership they are entitled 10 TWO
safeguards against and maadmnistraton lhe rst OF thee
be had by eliminating competition 1t nowhere regarded as
proper policy leave private competitor in the hed wherever
This is neglected loss and trouble result
The other safeguard found basng the bonds upon the
plant they leaving the public credit Tree Where this is done
the plant and maintenance paid by its and
all paid the charged them, and OF it can be
charged to them as taxpayers When they pay part OF II as
payers part the concealed from them
and they all of knowing the cost OF the service
plan making plant carry credit and of
generally accepted and most
cities hard separate politics and business
these safeguards long before
Oakland took municipal ownership does not deter the organ OF
municipal socialism that city from publishing attack upon what
calls ophy the matter from mputing to this paper
motives that have no place IN its policy
The position of The Call may appeal fanatics is it
intended do But that appeals business sense IS
city critic says that the seawa bonds upon the
~ f that Improvement because OF legislative act submitting
plan Of the people by whom ratified This is
also Endorsement of The Calls position by the people
California proves that whenever and wherever the people have
opportunity they The OF Oak
land good majority in favor OF making the seaa pay its
Give them chance again they apply
principle municipal ownership But is said by Oakland
that there no legislation and authority empowering
land bonds based upon the plant they OF that
perfectly Nor there such authority for the
people of the State upon the eawal bonds until legally
given Oakland way which it
given the when Oakland will raty the views
OF The Gall as 1t did by its vote on the seawalL
the further exposure of sophy the critic If
general the then the people
provide sinking fund.- the
the municipal whether he not This
make of the city for
S6oOoooo taxpayers who benefit
pay If the campaign there have ele
ii, this might be put among the humor OF the
greater violation natural justice than
compel pay what benefit him. The
given for making pay for municipal plant the very
why the only should for it. They too entitled
the they will economical of the
plant only be if its whole charged the
in the
people Oakland before them example oil
political management They asked
nearly 100000 their but denied the
right the for which be spent Fair
justice require that such be framed and made
subject ratification by the people Speaking in behalf of the
PAYERS depecate this refusal let them the
provides for has explained II
especially hard who the proposed
plant though they will
all taxpayers.
nothing the corporation that supplies Oakland
water except that it good public policy destroy prop
Nor anything for the corporation which
sell nonexisting plant the and refuses let the
people pass upon which would its plans
constructing plant which pres
apply principles that general appl
cable everywhere.
newspaper nothing but
vtuperation followed safely
satisfactory who weapon
of disposition
weedy product of Men of
would be woul thing for city take
from those who n other weapon.