Manchester Democrat. [volume] (Manchester, Iowa) 1875-1930, 1913-03-05
BOND COUNTY
FOR ROAD funds?
MANCHESTER CITIZENS VIEWS
ON "PERMANENT' ROAD
QUESTION.

Editors Democrat:
1t goes without saying that every
\ body wants good roads, and perma
Snenr If possible, and the question
is how we can obtain them, and when.
- am of the opinion that there is one
way, and only one, by which we can
obtain them, and that is by having a
law which permits us to bond our
county for that purpose. This seems
to be the way in which good roads
y are built in every state where they
n have them, so far as l can learn, ina
/ can see no other way in which they
q can be got to an extent to satisfy
4 our people. OF course, some people
object to this method and ssay that
they would never vote to bond the
4 county for any purpose, and if a ma
jority Of the voters Of a county
should so vote, then l can not see
that that county can ever get good
roads. Some object, saying that to
y bond -tthea county would cause every
body in it to help pay for such roads
and that a portion Of the expense
should be taxed to the abutting land
\ owner. This proposition, l claim, is
faulty. The land owners should not
pay. any more than the same tax that
others pay. Take, for instance, a
piece OF road, say, ten miles long,
leading out from market town.
The owner living nearest this town
uses the road no more than the tWen-
ty-five or thirty land owners along
the road use it and as he uses only
one tWenty-fifth as much as is used by
be Just that he should pay the same
nc m q Tnnp fay.thoSf from + he |
town. Add to that the pers ons com
ing in from a half mile to mile |
out and you might add twenty-five or
thirty more users of the road. Then
take the number OF people from town
and from >other places that use the !
road. 1t would soon reach over one
hundred who travel that road, and
would it be right for him to pay for
more than the ordinary tax when his
use is not more than one,hundredthI
part as much as the public? The
road is not llis-does- not in any
manner belong to the abutting land
owners, but is for the people. and
the underlying principle of this propo-
sition has been followed ever since
we commenced making roads Our
Constitution provides that private
property shall not be taken for pub
lie use without just compensation to
the owner, and this idea has been
followed all along from the estab-
lishment Of the road up to as near
a perfected road as we now have. No
part of the improvements of roads,
not even the building of bridges, is
taxed to the abutting land owners.
In appriZing the land taken for road
purposes, the benefits to the owner
are never. taken into account Jour {
Supreme Court says they should moi
be. 20 Iowa 475), and why should
he line be drawn when we reach
he point when we want permanent
roads and then tax portion OF the
sxnense to the abutting land owners:
ID the building of good roads in
states where they are now doing II J
his is never done and think il
ought not to- be-
Another objection is that we are
lot prepared for permanent roads, y
tut when can we be better prepared a
+ they can be built only by the issu- /
ng Of bonds, then we may wait TWEEN I
y years or more and will be no bet a
er prepared than we are now, for h
We will then have to issue bonds; f
md why not issue them now and Q
'eriod? t
Another objection is that the an p
lual interest charge on the bonds vii o
q great, but that will not amount to f
ny more, nor as much asrAwe are !
ow paying for the repair of roads. t
our and half per cent. on twenty
+ twenty-five year bonds can readi- G
Y be sold in the market and the four s
nd a half per cent. interest on those S