The Harrison times., 1912-09-07
Cities and Towns Can Secure
Lower Interest Rate by
-''', -, Issuing Bonds.
GET MORE IMPROVEMENTS
Amendment No. IS TO Be Voted Upon
September 9 Restricts Amount
That May Be Borrowed.

public improvements Is regarded as
one Of the strongest arguments in
favor Of the adoption Of proposed con-
stitutional Amendment No. Is, which
will be voted upon in the coming gen.
eral election on September 9, and
which, If adopted, will give cities and
Incorporated towns OF more than 1000
inhabitants, the right to issue bonds
for public improvements
1t is pointed out that under the
present system OF improvement DIS
tcicts, the city or town is compelled
to pay not less than per cent inter
est upon It's time warrants which are
issued to pay for improvements. Cities
which are able to issue bonds backed
by the credit OF the municipality, can
secure all the money they need for
public improvements at 4 and 5 per
cent interest. The difference between
the four or five per cent and eight per
cent in interest, represents many
thousands OF dollars annually which
could be expended for public improve
ments In the cities and towns OF the
state, II bonds could be issued
Amendment No IS guarantees that
this saving will result to the cities
and towns for there Is a provision in
the proposed measure which requires
that bonds issued by cities of the first
class shall not bear greater rate OF
interest than five per cent per annum
and that bonds issued by cities Of the
second class and inc rporated towns
shall not bear n greater rate OF inter
est than six per cent II Is also pro-
yided that the bonds can never be
sold at less than par These two pro
visions preclude any possibility OF u
city Of the first class ever paying more
than five per cent for It's money put
into public improvements or OF a city
OF the second class or Incorporated
town paying more than G per cent per
annum,
The situation In which Little Rock
finds itself Is given az an example
OF the conditions In other cities
throughout the state, Little Rock
owes less money than any city OF It's
sl2e IN the United states, II would be
expected, therefore, that on account
OF her small indebtedness, she should
be able TO borrow money at the lowest
rate OF interest, but Little Rock, In
common with other cities Of Arkansas,
iB compelled to Issue time warrants,
payable IN three, four or five years,
and can scarcely place them at a bet
ter rate Of interest than per cent per
annum, on the other hand the city
Of Memphis owes approximately ST.
100000 spent for public improve
monts In spite OF her large indebted
ness and because Of her ability to Is
sue bonds ana place her affairs on Il
business basis, Momphs has been able
to place her bonds at 4, 4 Ia, and IL
per cent per Nnnum, M against the \
per cent that Little Rock and other
Arkansas cities are forced to pay with
their small indebtedness
The adoption Of Amendment No, 10
will not affect ut all the taxes OF any
one outside the cities Ons towns
The executive committee In charge
of the campaign for Amendment No,
10 declares thai the object desired
cannot be reached by Improvement
dlatrcta
Amendment No, 10 restricts the
amount Of bonds that can be- Issued
20 10 per cent Of the N6soBsod yRlua'
ton Of all real and personal property
In the city or town proposing to issue
the bonds. Az the basis Of asseop.
mcnt lg about 30 per cont of the real
value of the property the actual
amount Of bonds that could be issued
by any city or town would be about
per cent Of itB property value,
The amendment also provides that
the special tax to provide for the pay.
ment Of the bonds and interest shall
not exceed five mills on the dollar,
IN addition 20 the rate OF taxation now
authorized,
"The method Of organizing improve
mont dlalrIcJa In 10 cumbersome mat
thoro can never be enough OF them to
accomplish the end desired" the com
mItlee says IN n abatement which It
has issued
Moreover. under that system, oil
the cost In thrown on the owners OF
real property This IN unjust, no muoh
no that frequently these owners re-
fuse 70 assume tho burden why
should the property owners Of today
be forced TO pay all the cost OF im.
proyemehts which are TO be enjoyed
by generations to conner why should
not an arrangement be reached, no pro
yIded In proposed Amendment 40, 10,
30 that all those who enjoy the bep7'lta
OF the improvements shall pay thelf
pfop0flionale part Ct the cost th.ieofY
II In not right II Ia not equitable, II n
not Just that the citizens OF today
should pay all the cost Of the improve
mente which are 10 BE- ehloyt long
after they shall have passed away
"Arkansas Ia making mora rapid
progress, educatIonally than any