The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1911-08-21
CALIFORNIA AND KANSAS.

1nefe appeared IN THESE NOiu444An
some time ago an interview with a
T, Kansan who had just returned from
an extended as well as an extensive
trip in California. 1t expressed his
opinion that. agriculturally and hor-
ticulturally speaking, California was
no place for a prospective settler who
did not have plenty of capital or
backing; that all kinds of fruit and
farm lands were high there; that the
cost of cultivation, especially of fruit
indigenous to the soil of the state,
was large; and that the net returns
on such investments were relatively
small. He contrasted such conditions
with the situation in Kansas, where
without any great capital it is possible
for a man to farm or grow fruit and
at a good profit.
Strenuous objections have been
made to such conclusions by the San
Francisco Call, which uses the inter
view in question as the basis for ex-
tended editorial comment. Among
other things the Call says:
Lands in California are worth
what they Will bring in the market
If prices are high-when they are
hight is because people who know
the ground and its potentialities are
ready to pay them. Real estate deal
ers, neither in Kansas nor in Cali
fornia. will spend time and money
asking for prices that nobody wants
to pay. The fact that our Kansas
visitor found high land values in parts
of Southern California as compared
with those at home is an unconscious
confession based on his own obser-
walton that land in this state is worth
a great deal more than in Kansas
Such prices are not paid without good
reason shown and proofs supplied
Nobody that we have met pays out
good money on the basis of real
estate mans Dreams
Then the Call admits that land in
certain choice spots in Southern
California brings high prices but it
insists that much land in CALIFORNIA;
valleys is comparatively cheap and is
sold on the single basis of its earning
capacity. And the Call concludes:
If he (the man quoted by this paper)
still thinks that prices are steep when
compared with Kansas, that fact as
far as it may be fact, is due only to
the superior earning capacity of Cali
fornfa lands Neither in Kansas nor
California do men buy homes on the
basis of dreams. The land is worth
what it will bring"
Let's see about this earning ca
pacity of lands in California as com
pared with the cheaper lands in Kan
sas One of the advertisements for
California lands advises people that if
they want to get rich quick they
lemons. A couple of years ago prom
inent official of the California Fruit
Growers Exchange told the State
Journal that the cost of the land and
It's cultivation for lemon growing
would represent an average Investment
of $1,000 per acre. He said that the
average net returns from such an in
vestment was about 4 per cent. That's
why the lemon industry in California
wanted and got the tariff increased on
lemons from one cent to one and one
half cents a pound. The California
lemon growers wanted this protection
so that they could better cor7pete with
the imported lemons and thereby get
a more reasonable net return on their
investment.
NOW as TO the return no - HNaii94'7-
Excellent corn land can be purchased
in Kansas for $40 an acre. Prepar-
ing the ground, planting. cultivating
and harvesting can be done we'll inside
of $40 an acre. This figure is high
That brings the investment up to $50
per acre. An ordinary crop of so
bushels to the acre selling at so cents
a bushel will bring in a gross return
of $50. Deducting the cost of prepar-
ing the ground. etc. which has been
placed at $40 per acre and it leaves
a net return per acre or 500. This is
a net profit of % per cent on the total
investment. Even the San Francisco
Call will have to admit that the Cali
fornia lemon growers net return of
per cent is rather puny IN comparison.