The Penn's Grove record., 1914-07-17
A SERIOUS SEWAGE PROBLEM
Board of Education Wants Hore
Money

NAOhCy l
The problem of disposing of the
sewage from an up-to date school
housewife toilets in the basement on
the Cunningham lot, part of which is
below the grade level of the streets
adjoining, has never been explained to
the citizens other than to let it run into
a tank and have it carted away. No
one has counted the cost Of that.
Il is proposed to put the toilets in
the basement and have them flushed
with city water. The plumber will
tell you every flush uses four gallons.
Granted that $50 use the toilet once a
day. That means 600 gallons OF water
to be disposed of. DO the taxpayers
wish to pay for having 20 barrels of
water carted from the school house
every day =? Do the ten owners thru
whose property the surface drain runs
want it to flow oyer OF thru their
properties =?
There are many c%esspools in Penns
Grove because there is no sewage sys- |
tenn. The water from a family may
safely soak away Oh an average lot OF
80 10y $50 feet, but when it comes TO
disposing OF sewage from 300 or more
children on an acre OF less OF ground,
about the size of six lots, and on ground
partly below the grade level OF streets a
greater problem arises. 1t may nOt be
serious al first, but the future expense
it may lead to will far surpass the extra
cost of four acres of land for $4,000.
A surface drain thru which water
flows from five dcIes uns thru the
Cunningham lot. The we flow from
sewage disposal tanks may be run into
that, but how soon will it be before the
ten property owners will get an inJunc-
ton to prohibit water other than from
surface rain flowing thru their land!
Then will come far more expense than
the interest o. So. 900 for four acres OF
high land and six acres of meadow
upon which sewage can be run without
being offensive to any neal residence or
other property.
Is not this worthy of serious consid-
Grafton and the problem fully explained
and probable cost given to taxpayers
before more money is voted to erect a
modern school building on the Cum
ningham lot? do not the taxpayers
want to know? Are they not entitled
TO that knowledge from the membels
of the Board of Education before more
money is voted Tor them to spend?
1t was the purpose of the Board of
Education under control of a few mem
hers to ask for $4,000 on May 8, but
when a petition signed by a hundred
voters asking for the privilege Of voting
for a larger school ground was pre-
scented al adjournment was made and
at the next meeting it was decided to
ask for only $4,000. Why?
1t was the purpose to spend $4,000
for two adjoining lots OF land, making
$500 for about an acre and a quarter
of laud, part to be filled i'll, when four
acres could be procured for $4,000.
What wise business mai acting with
out personal interest, and without po-
litlcal, social, religious, OF local preju-
dice, would choose the Smaller tract OF
land, and not look ahead to future deVel-
opments of properties and larger iaclll'
ties for an increasing school population?
The Boald of Education wants the
citizens TO vote $1,000 for about one
VlIllu Va OIL ttIlO VI DIOlC lullOs 0AIC Nv
voters TO be led INFO greater expense
aud get less for their money?
They purpose Oh erecting 4 school
house similar to that at GlaSsboro. The
school house at GlaSsbOro was not fin
ished, furnished and equipped for
$4,000. Ii the taxpayers walk into
the trap, they may be asked i'll a few
nnOutIC IN Untc cnmp moVp thousands of
dollars. Will the Taxpayers be led on
by such deception, 10y those who are
playing a political game and making
sport Of school affair?
1he cost price of G~lasSboro's
School which is proposed to be dupli-
Gated i'll Penns Grove was $36, O00.
A very 'hrewd game is being played
the taxpayers Of Penns Grove III the
most cunning way by those who are
working upon the local and personal
p%rejudices Of MANY to carry their point.
Ii is not carried on i'll an open and
frank Way. nor being advertised more
than absolutely necessary. Many who
cannot see it now may III future years,
ii the taxpayers vote for what is asked
at the election already called.
If fair play Was intended the Board
would give the petitioners a right to
vote for a larger school ground and privi-
leges to vote on other propositions
than what the board want.
Are the petitions going to remain at
home and not have their opinions re-
spected by at least an opportunity to
vote their opinions? Are voters who
favor other propositions going to be
hoodwinked and not allowed TO have
the privilege of voting for only one
proposition? When Fthat was done the
Sack site Won.
When a Board of Education calls
another election inside of eight weeks
and asks for more money before they
have started their project, thele must
have been some deception III the form
ell election and more to follow.
If taxpayers are interes, ed they will
look around and learn when and what
is the project. Will it not be wise to
have a self meditation and ask ones self:
Am l voting for the present and future
welfare of the children of Penns Grove
and future development of the BOr-
Ough impartial considered when | vote
to erect a school house Oh the Cunning
ham lot or am | voting my self interest,
my personal or local prejudices.
The whole issue is, what is best for
the children now and in the future;
what is best for the future develop
ment of Penns Grove. We believe
such interest, will not be best provided
by erecting a large school house on a
small lot and concentrating 600 and
more children on small lois on the
Orn of two streets where travel is
heavy aud will increase i'll future years.
Besides having to ask for more mon
ey the Board has learned that the
people must vote specifically where to
locate the school house in order to
make the bombs perfectly legal. Be-
sides voting for or against the appro-
priatiOn of more money the opportunity
is given to vote for OF against erecting
the school h0uCa IN the CunDiu0ham