The San Francisco call., 1908-10-03
WATER MONOPOLY
WON'T SELL PLANT
Spring Valley Formally Refuses
TO Name Any Price of Its
Property
Insinuates in Letter That City
Has Misrepresented 1t and
Made Arbitrary Figure

Spring Valley formally refused yes
terday to name any price for the sale
Of its plant to the city.
In long communication to the board
of supervisors the water monopoIys
board Of directors acknowledged that
the voters OF San Francisco would not
agree to pay any such price for the
plant as the company has claimed it
was worth.
The letter includes the misleading
statement that the city was Offered"
the plant for S32, 200, 900, when, as a
matter of fact, the tentative s32,000,000
proffer of the company's chief officials
was expressly denied by them as any
thing approaching their idea of it's
value, and when made was not bind
ing upon the stock holders or the board
Of directors.
Spring Valleys letter insinuates that
the board of supervisors has been a
party to misrepresentation" long and
consistently made as TO the value of
the company's property" 1t asserts
that the city's valuation of $25, 900, 600,
based on the careful and impartial re-
port of former City Engineer Grunsky,
with additions and corrections by his
successors, is arbitrary" and puts for
ward as grossly inadequate even the
fanciful figures of S32,Oo0,000. nearly
arrived at through Engineer Heuer 8
unique average made up out of all the
valuations that have ever been put on
the property.
The letter closes with the expression
that there is no hope of settlement
of the plants value save through ju-
dicial determination.
The letter in full follows:
San Francisco Cal,
Oct. =, 1908.
To the Honorable the Board of Supervisors of
the City and County of San Francisco
No ho luf1p fl,af ft,l
! purpose, either for the city for the company.
can be served by making offer for the sale OF
ordinance No. sos The officers of the company
during the last year have done everything in
their power to call public attention to the abso-
lutte necessity for the purchase of the company s
plant by the city, radical change In the rate
fixing policy hitherto pursued, IL the city to
be saved from imminent danger.
In this connection the company heretofore Of
fered, both through the federated commercial
bodies and afterwards directly to the super
vlsors, to sell the company's property for $50,
600, 900.
In the offer It was originally made, and
since IN tne subsequent exhaustive presentation
OF the entire subject to the supervisors and to
| the public, 1t clearly made of record in be-
half Of the company that the price named was
believed to be much less than the value of the
| property, and that it had only been made as
compromise which would have been accepted by
| the stock holders under financial conditions then
existing and in their desire TO offer the city an
easy and fair way out of complications which
! seemed to jeopardize the vital interests of all
citizens
1t was also clearly and repeatedly stated that
the rejection of this offer for a sale and the re-
/ fusal Of rates which would yield q fair return
/ upon the suggested price would oblige the com
| pany to continue the effort which it had already
begun for the establishment by judicial decision
/ OF what the officers Of the company believed to
/ De fair and much higher valuation
| COMPANY'S OFFER DECLINED
The city accepted this latter alternative by de-
/ Ginning TO consider the company's offer for sale
! ana by attempting to fix rates upon an arbi-
trarily assumed valuation of about $25 600. 900,
I Tor depreciation, thus deliberately forcing the
company again into the courts where the ques-
tions at issue are still pending.
1t seems to follow clearly from the facts
! thus briefly recited
First, that the city authorities can not con-
sistenty with their previously announced conclu-
/ sions. recommend to the voters the purchase of
/ the Spring Valley property at any price which
would now be considered by the stock holders.
second. that. In view of the misrepresenta.
tons which have been long and consistently
made as to the value Of the company's property
| and. the difficulty in which the general public
naturally finds itself in passing on a question of
such Importance with the conflicting evidence be-
which the company would now accept would be
/ ratified by the voters at the present time
AWAIT JUDICIAL OPINION
In the existing and radical difference of opin-
ION as TO value, II seems to that the only hope
of settlement lies in awaiting the additional
Ilght upon the controversy which may be ex-
pected from judicial opinion upon the evidence
which has been so fully presented upon both
sides. The company's brief in the main Iitiga-
lion involving the question of value was fled last
! April and we are anxiously awaiting the citys S
/ reply. Respectfully.
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
SPRING VALLEY WATER COMPANY
BY w. b. b. ingalls,, Secretary.