The Logan Republican. [volume] (Logan, Utah) 1902-1924, 1911-01-28

Z
well. but IL is their duty to handl
city matters and safeguard It's inter
est just as they would their own al
fairs.
am told that the revenues from tn,
lighting furnished (power not in
cluded) by the Logan City plan
amounts to S11, $4,000 per annum. Thi
of course may vary little. Since thu
first of the year lights have been ad
vanced from 10c to 15c per month fol
a 10 candle power. This will increase
the city's revenue some over $4,000
per month. The one mill tax OF las
year brought to the city plant in rount
numbers about $2,3O0.0O. All Of the
revenue from the Electric Light PLAN
including this one mill tax, or $4,000
was expended for maintenance of the
plant, or at least the balance remain
ing will be used in some repairs now
needed.
We are therefore now just where
we were when the plant was built, as
| far as ownership is concerned, but
the plant is six and one-half years
older than it was, but we are owing
practically all It cost us.
A man who buys lot and builds
house upon 1t and borrows the
money with which to buy the lot and
build the house would not be making
a good investment il he received only
enough as rent to meet the interest
on the money he borrowed. The house
will be getting older and depreciating
in value, while his Indebtedness would
remain just he same. Logan City is
in that condition as far as the light
plant is concerned.
Csc, soc, and 35c per months for l6
candle power light is considered cheap
yet people of Logan are paying 15c
II patronizing the city plant and 1Oc
II using the Hercules.
am freely of the opinion that the
city light plant has been a most ex-
oellent investment, and that already
the users Of light and power in Lo-
gan City have saved the amount of
money the plant cost them. II any one
doubts my statement, let them bring
forth their figures. Just prior to the
time the lights were turned on at the
city plant, we were paying SOC for a
16 candle power lamp. Some time pri-
or to that, we were paying 33c per
lamp. Figure as you will, taking either
price of the two above mentioned,
and it will be found that the plant
has already paid for itself. But here
Is a matter with which | am not well
pleased as taxpayer of Logan City
am one of many who have been
faithful to the city ever since the plant
was installed, irrespective of the
price charged. A great many others
for reasons best known to themselves
have patronized the plant, which has
been in competition to the city plant.
AT the present time those who have
been faithful to the city plant are pay
ing 15c per lamp, while those who
have not been faithful to the city
plant are getting their lights at 10c
per lamp. 1t might be argued that at
the present time the city plant could
not take on any more lights than il Is
carrying and thus no one could be
censured for not patronizing the city
This is true at present, but it has
not always been so, from the fact
that during the first few years of the
history of our plant, It was seeking
new patrons. At the present time,
however, | am paying 80 per cent
more for my lighting than my neigh
Dor is paying, Notwithstanding I
with many others took on the city
lights as soon as the plant was ready
N''' "''' pun -'N pNl lamp, Nlllt NY
neighbors were paying lOc per lamp
from the competing company, want
to know now, why should be asked
to pay 80 per cent more than my
neighbor is paying. No one will deny
Che fact that the reason lights are
sold at the present price is in conse.
quence Of the establishment of the
city plant, | consider this unfair dis.
elimination. 1t is unfair to me, and
It Is unfair TO all who take the city
lights, and if the other company were
now accepting additional patronage,
the city could make no complaint, 1t
we should in bulk turn our trade to
the competing company This of
course would be only temporary re-
lief. and in the long run injuring our
selves all the more.
No one of course can comnlain nj