The Hood River glacier. (Hood River, Or.) 1889-1933, 1908-03-26
Statement 20 the Public.


We have bad four water elections,
three to build new system aud prac.
tically confiscate the present system,
and one to buy the present plant at
an agreed price. All four failed to
carry, each having stronger vote
against bonding than the previous
one. At both Of the last two elections
large majorities voted against bonds.
Now comes another agitation to bond
the city for $75, 900 ON the same prop
osition that defeated the first thee
elections, to conhscate the present
system and incur big debt tor the
second one, while the present one has
water of fine quality sufficient for at
least three times the present popula-
tion.
A remonstrance against further cleo
tions has been fled with the city
council signed by practically all OF
the business men and large property
owners, covering at least three fourths
of the taxpaying power of the city and
enough responsible names to show
beyond doubt the futility OF calling
any more elections along this line at
the present time.
Some of the principal agitators who
have been active In working up senti-
ment In favor Of building u new water
system at heavy expense and OF con-
fiscating the present plant underi ook
few years ago tc show the good peo-
pie of Hood River that the little
spring flowing about lbs, 200 gallons
daily, which comes out about 90 feet
east OF the large reservoir, would fur
nish enough water for the entire city
and urged the passage OF an ordi-
nance granting privileges and oom-
pensation to their company. These
same people now insist that the pres
ent supply, which according to Rob
ert's report delivers $50, 900 gallons
gaily, Ia inadequate. The small spring
furnishes about 90 gallons per capita
daily and according to these agita-
tors methods of figuring was ample,
but now the supply OF $50 gallons per
capita Ia inadequate according to the
same Hgurers. The same parties
"rule or ruin" policy cost the straw
berry growers of the west side OF the
valley not less than $50, 900 few
years ago end now the city 10 asked
to put up the modest sum of S75, 900
for the real purpose Of assisting these
knockers In running the investment of
those who have put their money into
the present lighting and water system
and brought the plant from pract loal-
ly nothing to the present standard,
which was done at time when the
property had been badly neglected
and the service disgusting
The protest against further cleo
tions asks for system of fire proteo
tion of which the business section Is
badly iu need. but the answer is made
that some citizens living in remote
parts Of the city object on account OF
said protection not extending to their
residences and are not willing to have
the expense of the protection paid
out of the city funds. Have you ever
stopped TO figure how heavy this bur-
den would be? A good system will
cost approximately 81, 900 per year and
save In insurance rates over 81, 600
besides atfording the protection that
brings comfortable sleep and net
saving of s3, 900 for each 81 cost.
The city license OF 1907 and the
taxes of 1908 together make sSl37 and
add to this 81, 900 for fire protection
makes total of s9l37, of which the
fire protection would cost practically
one-ninth. The total tax levy Is 20
mills, OF which the city levy is five
mills or practically one-sixth of the
total. The fire protection would cost
approximately one ninth OF ones sixth
of the direct tax OF one iifty-fouIth
of the total levy, cay one-flftieth In
round numbers. A property owner
who pays total of $40 taxes
would contribute the magnanimous
sum OF 20 cents per yeai for the pur-
pose of having the business district Of
his city protected from fire. On this
basis 1t would cost Frank A. Gram
s4, j. I. Holman 55Ia cents, Council
man Wright 40 cents. Stewart Hard
ware Co. $3.50, VIM. Stewart 81. 20,
Councilman Buck 20 cents, etc., per
annum. We mention these names, as
most people know of what their prop
erty consists, where they live and do
business, and because the amounts as
shown on the lists of taxes In the
hands of the banks show the amounts
on country and city property In a
lump aud we are infoT med that the
amounts as shown on the above are
for city property only. 1t Is Gel tain.
ly serious matter to live In re-
mote part of the city and contribute
from 20 to 90 cents per annum TOR fire
protection, and one would think from
the heavy pressure brought to bear
on the city council that the extrava-
gance would never be tolerated, not.
withstanding that 1t 10 the custom In
other cities. These trifiing amounts
look big, but the fact that those OBJ
jeeting could hardly exist on their
present locations if the business dis
trict did not employ and support
them is not worthy Of consideration.
A close examination Of the rates
charged for water in different cities
vary considerably. The family rate
runs from SO cents to ST. 80 per month,
barns from 25 cents to 81, baths 10
cents to 80 cents, stores 80 cents to
81, irrigation % cents to 81. 30 per lot,
but In cities where one rate is low
another is enough higher to make the
gross revenue enough to pay on the
investment.
In Hood River we have practically
followed the schedule of our predeces-
sors, the principal change being that
we reduced the house rate from 81. 80
to 81. 25 with discount of 25 cents IL
paid on or before the 10th OF the
month.
The real gauge Of comparison is the
gross revenue per capita per annum.
In Hood River it is s2.7s; Oregon
Citv. 90. &c: Baker Citv. 81. 90: Ash