Los Angeles herald., 1910-06-30
Vital PROBLEMS
| IN VOTERS HANDS
Elections to Council and Reteren-
dun Ordinances Tax OBJ
legations of Citizens
GOOD GOVT. MEN CONFIDENT
Eagerly Await Result Of the Hard
Struggle to Weed Graft
from City
Continued from Page One,


forth by the Good Government or
ganization yesterday, are:
First-Shall the voters of Los Ange-
les sustain the Good Government ad-
ministration? Is this administration
satisfactory? Is 1t to be continued?
If so, clean, honest and efficient men
are necessary in the city council. II
not, the city may be expected to revert
to it's formerly disgraceful condition
corporation control, redlight districts,
machine politics and municipal graft
and corruption.
Second-Shall the lighting corpora
tions be allowed to charge Los An
geles light consumers much larger
rate than is charged In other cities
and shall they be allowed to put men
like Houghton and Healy into the city
council to protect their interests?
Third-Shall the sixty millions of dol
lars which are now involved In the de-
velopment of the great owens river
water and power plant projects and In
the harbor construction, street and
highway improvement, parks, ETC., be
entrusted to men like Healy and
Hcughton, who, when members Of a
previous city council, voted to give to
the railway corporations one OF the
j greatest and most valuable assets of
the city-the river bed franchise?
Fourth-Shall the word go out to the
many cities in the east which regard
Los Angeles as the foremost model
good government city in the United
States, and who are eagerly awaiting
the outcome of this decisive struggle
between the corporations and the peo-
pie, that Los Angeles has taken a step
backward or a step forward in its his
tory making contest?
Fifth-Shall the taxpayers of Los
4 Angeles vote for their own interests,
to save money for their own purses,
or shall they vote to sustain the pres
ent lighting rates and thus place more
money in the Golfers of the corpora
tions?
The corporations have made the plea
that the rates charged by the Edison
company in Pasadena have been main
tanned at a loss to the company In or
der to drive the municipal plant Of
Pasadena out of business, and claim
that electricity cannot be sold at the
Pasadena rate except when compet-
tion compels 1t, to do away with pub
licly owned and operated plant. There
fore, the Good Government organiza-
ton asks:
Sixth: Shall the people of Los An
geles vote to allow the lighting cor
porations their present excessive rate
when the extra profit made by the
corporation in Los Angeles is to be
used to fight the people of Pasadena?
Shall the voters of this city help the
lighting corporations to ruin the mu-
nlcipal plant in Pasadena? Shall they
vote to contribute to the profits of the
corporations here in order that the
corporations may have more funds to
wage their battle against the best in
terests of the Crown city?
THREATENED PUBLIC
The lighting corporations have is
sued a public threat that unless the
new ordinance, which reduces their
rate to seven cents, is defeated, they
will retard the development of Los An
geles by refusing to extend their lines
into the suburban districts and newly
opened tracts.
The Good Government organization
and Mayor Alexander reply that the
corporations never have made these
extensions in the past except in few
instances where they wished to favor
certain large real estate interests, and
that where extensions have been made
in ether instances the lighting com
panies have required the residents of
the suburban tracts to put up a large
bonus, in most cases of from $4,000 to
$16, 900. They further state that the
lighting corporations have in the past,
for many years, tended to retard the
development of Los Angeles by having
refused to make these extensions, and
aver IDdI Iuey kept Oul COiilpSllllOll
and worked inestimable injury to the
residents of many sections of Los An
geles by inducing the city council of
Los Angeles at a time when the city
council it is charged, was controlled
by Champ Vance, political boss for the
lighting companies, to adopt law i'm
posing a license tax of $100 a month,
or $1,000 a year, on all lighting plants
in the city of Los Angeles doing a
business of $50 a month or more.
The effect of this law, it is charged. |
has been to prevent the erection of
many plants that otherwise would have
been built to supply light for various
outlying tracts and suburban tracts, |
but which could not afford to pay 800 |
month to do a business involving a |
similar amount. Under this ordinance.
1t is said, lighting plant doing bus
mess of $500 a month would have to |
pay the same license of a plant doing |
business of $25,000 a month This |
ordinance also has prevented many |
owners of tracts from buying an engine |
and dynamo and supplying their own
electricity.
So on, throughout the campaign, |
various arguments have been made by |