Elmore County Republican. [volume] (Mountain Home, Idaho) 1910-1915, 1913-11-08

Editor Republican: II an apolog.
be needed for my addressing to yol
communication on the sewer ques
lion, it Is found In the fact that al
citizen and taxpayer / am deepl.
interested party. There has been al
lttempt to convey the impression
hat | was opposed to sewer sys
tenn for Mountain Home, which how
ever is not fact. I am fully aware
Of the imperative necessity of q
sewer for the congested part Of the
ity.
l contested the former bond elec
ion for sewer for the reason the
lection was SO grossly misconduct
that 1t Was absolutely impossible
o ascertain from the count of the
Jallots whether the people Of the
own We're N favor of, or opposed
o the bonding That election was q
farce pure and simple.
| was opposed to the last bond
election for several reasons, among
hem the following: | believed 1t to
De unnecessary to build a sewer to
practically sewer every house In
Mountain Home' at this time, and
III unnecessary at this time 1t would
De unjust to tax the people at this
time, and | considered 1t unfair and
unjust to tax the resident ON the out
skirts of the town, who could not
,onnect with the sewer If he wanted
20, just as much per 500. on his pro.
perty as those living In the ccngested
part of the city were paying wac
leeded the sewer and could use it;
and again, was opposed to 1t for
the reason that it was not put mp to
The people fairly so that they could
know just what they were voting for.
But there lis no necessity to partic-
llarize. That election Is over, the
result shows plainly that the people
Ut least know what they don't want
and are not going to be carried off
their feet by an election morning
newspaper article or posters nailed
up over town. That being settled,
would it not be a good idea to call
the people together and let them
say what they are willing to stand
for? l don't mean to call another
election to vote for or against $40,-
100000 bonds, nor do | mean to call
a mass meeting to tell the people
that there is going to be an cleo
tion on a certain date, and If they
vote for the bonds they will have q
sewer, and If they vote against 1t
they will not have one, but meet
ing to discuss the question as to
what they, the taxpayers, felt they
were able to do under all the exist
iuS SoHuiLiouS, tuc ucScS5lty lOI a
sewer; present high taxes etc.
At present the prevalent opinion
seems to be that II the taxpayers
don't vote to bond the whole town
no part of the town can have a sewer;
Also that those whose lots are in
e congested part of the town vote
for sewer and those out Of the con-
sested part vote against 1t.
Neither of these suppositions is In
my opinion correct. In my own case
| have IA lots and 7 buildings close
in on the sewer line, and it would
have benefited me far more than my
share of the taxes would have been
by taxing the whole town for the
sewer, as proposed by the last elec-
ton, and am willing to give to the
other voters the same credit for fair
ness tina. ! claim for myself. AS to
the matter Of sewering the whole |
town or none, | will say, that, dur
ing the few months that | was chair
man of the village board, We had
4 survey made for the present water
system, also one for sewer sys-
tenn, and made sectionally, that Is,
what 1t would cost to sewer
each street or alley throughout the
lown; the cost of the main sewer onl
Boyd Avenue into which all the
street or alley sewers would empty;
the cost of thu outfall sewer to car
ry the sewage rom Boyd Avenue to|
Slaughter-house Slough, etc.; and the
cost of each lateral. According to|
his report the cost Of the out-fall
sewer would be:
From Boyd Ave. to outfall 31O0
feet IL inch vitrified tile
sewer @ $1.25 laid -. 5 1876 90
Nine manholes at SIS. each 675 90
Collecting sewer on Boyd Ave
lilo feet of inch @ SOC per
foot, laid, -. 49,. 49,. $50 w
$50 feet OF IL inch @ SIPS
per foot laid ). >. :. ;. 562 so
manholes @ $65. each !. 455 OO'