The Corvallis times. (Corvallis, Or.) 1888-1909, 1906-08-28
THEY DIFFER.
How Much Should the City
Pay for Fire Protection.

"A matter that Is pending in the
city council is the question of what
sum the city shall pay monthly for
fire protection. There is now fur
nished the city 40 fire hydrants,
so disposed that from two to half a
dozen streams. can, in very Quick
time, be put on any building inside
the corporate limits. Property in
the town, in fact, is more complete
ly protected than in almost any 9th
er town in the state. It is an ad-
vantage in which the whole public
shares, those who are water con-
sumers, as we'll as those who are
not. 1t Is a benefit, of course,
to renters, and to the humblest
householders, but it is of greatest
benefit to large property owners.
There are very large property
owners in Corvallis who are not
patrons of the mountain water sys-
TEN. Fire protection is worth more
to them by far, than it is to the
renter who owns nothing but his
household effects and wearing ap-
parel. If the renter happens to be
a water consumer and the big prop
erty owner is not, and if, in addi-
tion the water commission should
not receive remuneration from the
city for fire protection, the renter
would, in higher water rates, be re-
quired to pay the fire protection for
the big property owner, a PROPOSE
eion that would be manifestly un-
fair. That this big property owner,
whether water consumer or not,
should pay his just share Of the fire
protection, and that the whole bur-
den of paying for fire protection
should not be imposed on renters
and poor water consumers in higher
water rates, is generally admitted.
If anybody resists the proposition
1t must be big property owners and
only from a selfish standpoint,
though no such opposition so far as
known, has appeared. There is,
however, some difference of opinion
in the council as to what the amount
to be paid for fire protection should
be. Of course, the larger the sum
paid by the council for fire protec-
ton, the smaller the water rates
will be to consumers.
Another phase that enters into
the matter is the prestige brought
to Corvallis by the mountain water
system. 1t is known that many
people have located and are locat-
ing here because of the town S
magnifce Mt water supply. There
are many who think the great ac.
tivity in building last year and this,
has been much heightened, shYsthe
| prospect Of feaf}d the final acquire.
merlt of mountain water. All over
Oregon this water supply is talked
about and commended as a Corval.
lis attraction, and as an advantage
for the state college. This makes
the building and lots of the big
property owner more valuable. II
is financial benefit to him. Il
enables him to sell his property, il
he wants to sell it, for more money
1t means that he reaps a direct ad
vantage out of the mountain water
system. But no such advantage
comes in increased property values
to the renter, who owns nothing
Ought not then, the big property
owner, in taxes pay something fo1
the benefit he derives? Is this no
particularly true if he be not a
water consumer, and there are such
In what other way is the non
resident property owner to bereach'
ed, and be made to pay his share
| of the benefit he directly, derive
from the mountain water system fol
which he pays nothing? Shoule
the renter have to pay In higher
water rates for the advantage in in
creased property values, and fo
the FIRE protection of the non-resden
property owner? Or should the cou
i Gil ray an adequate and just com
pensation for fire protection to tn,
end that these public burdens shal
be justly and equitably distributed.
j The matter OF fire protection
compensation is in the hands of ths
| special committee, consisting O.
| Wiles, Irvine and Fuller, and I
I report will be made at the mex
regular meeting Of the council.
j Galveston's Sea Wall.