Arizona republican., 1910-02-05
Combining the Two Plans.

As we have had occasion to suggest
 heretofore. there is merit in each of
 the plans proposed for financing the
 sewer system: a straight issue or city
 bonds. on the one hand, and direct assessments upon the property 5ene-
 fitted. on linear foot basis, on the other hand.
 A strong argument in favor of a general bond issue is the unanswer- able proposition that ''posterity'-that is to say, the. future owners of city property-ousht to bear a part of the expense. Moreover. to pay out right for the system through the me dium of immediate property assess ments would not only relieve the fu- ture owners of this property from all share in the expense. but would present owners. Not few of them would have to borrow the money, at interest rates of 10 10 per cent.
 valid e:gument against bond issue of the ordinary sort-the inter est and sinking fund of which is pro- vided for by taxation on property values-is that many pieces of prop erty would pay for the sewer system in undue proportion to the benefits received. For instance, the great Dor ris block is worth considerably more than The Republican building and so is assessed at . higher valuation. and under an ordinary bond issue the Doris block would pay much more than The Republican building in sewer taxes. Yet very probably the two buildings would be on an equal foot ing in the use of the sewer system.
 In other words. to pay for the sewer system out of taxes raised in the or dinary manner amounts to imposing a penalty upon investors who have the enterprise to own or construct such buildings as the Doris block. We ought if practicable to avoid penal iziug enterprises that contemplate the substitution of costly and modern business blocks for the old buildings that go on the market
 The force of this argument is modi- fled. of course, by the certain fact that the installation of an adequate sewer system will lead to such c building boom-especially in the con- struction of expensive. and modern wellings-that before long the tax rate will be reduced.
 But it seems possible to combine the good features of both plans. and if it is practicable to do this. it should be done
 Such plan would contemplate longtime bond issue by the city. the interest on the bonds and the sinking fund for the bonds to be provided for by a special tax on the properties using the sewer. at a flat rate This special tax could be collected by the city monthly. as water rates are col lected. or in some other simple man. ner
 This plan would give all property owners the advantage of borrowing the money required for the system on long time, and at a low interest rate The city. by borrowing all the money required. in a lump sum. and at the low rate at which the city can borrow money, would thus act as the agent of the multitude of property owners who would find individual borrowing advantage. that successive purchasers of property would pay their share of the cost of the sewer system
 To pvt this plan into force would require the passage of a special bill by congress. but we have no doubt that a properly drawn bill could be passed within two or three weeks.
 It is certainly worth considering and if the mayor and council look at the situation the same way. it would be well to withhold the call for the bond election for short time and push the alternative measure through congress.
 But under all circumstances we must keep in view the necessity of securing an adequate sewer system without delay. and also keep in view fhe possibility of endangering the sewer proposition by stubborn division Df opinion as to the best method of providing funds.