The Ocala banner. (Ocala, Marion County, Fla.) 1883-194?, 1914-10-23

De made up in the form of general
taxation against the property with
In the corporate limits. The city's
plant would be free from municipal
license and property tax, while the in
dlvidual plant would be subject to
sucn taxation as the city might see
proper to impose within the limits OF
conhscation. Such a policy is, in my
opinion. wholly indefensible and at
variance with right and Justice.
Third: Improvement of water
works. Sometime ago, by vote of the
people, bond issue of 100000 was
authorized for water WORKS purposes:
only $4,000 of these bonds have been
negotiated and used for the purchase
OF the present plant, thus leaving
$4,000 yet available for further i'm
provements under the provisions of
the water works ordinance. After
authorizing the expenditure of s45,-
600 in the purchase of the plant. Sec
ton 10 of the ordinance provides
The remainder of said 100000 issue
shall be held by said bond trustees
without sale until the further instruc-
lions of the city of Ocala by ordi-
nance" Why could not the remand
er of these 100000, to-wit: $4,000
be made available, if now actually,
needed by the passage of suitable or
dinance in pursuance of the above
quoted provision of the old ordi-
nance? 1t is true that the water
works ordinance referred to does say
that: said bonds shall be applied to
no other purpose or use than the buy
ing and equipping, or constructing
and equipping of water works for
theCity of Ocala," and no part of the
funds could therefore be lawfully
used for municipal ice plant. If the
present proposed bond issue should
carry we would then have authorized
an additional $4,000 for water works
and ice plant; il the proposed bond
issue should be defeated, we would
have no ice plant, but would still
have, when the bonds heretofore auth
orized are negotiated, the sum of $685.
900 to be devoted solely to the i'm
provement of water works. The ne
cessity for a new issue of bonds for
water works has not been made ap.
parent, even If the proposition had
been submitted to be voted on sepa-
rately, and it would be time enough
to provide for further funds when the
necessity is made more apparent.
Fourth: Street paving. The pub
lie square, one block in each direc-
tion leading off from the square, and
two of the other principal thorough
fares in the business and residential
sections have already been paved
with Eitrified brick, with many OBJ
legations to the city on account there
of still outstanding and unpaid. There
is no urgent or crying demand from
the property owners on any unpaved
streets that such work would now pro-
coed. I doubt if there is a single
street in the city where the property
owners for a distance of as much as
six consecutive blocks would unite
in a petition to the council at this
time for the paving of such street,
obligating themselves to pay two
thirds of the cost which the law re-
quires. There is Misrepresentation
on the part of some of the citizens in
connection with this bonding for
paving proposition, which should be
corrected. II there Is any one who
thinks that if bonds are authorized,
the paving will be done entirely at
the city's expense, he is very mis-.
taken, and he should at once dis
abuse his mind of such an idea. No
such thing is permissible under the
ed. For every dollar which the city
spends in the paving of unpaved
streets, the individual abutting prop
erty owners will be required to pay So.
In other words, the law provides that
the city shall pay one-third, and the
abutting property owners the other
two-thirds, which two-thirds is Sc
cured by a lien equivalent to mortg-
age against such abutting property,
which lien is subject to foreclosure,
with the penalty of attorneys fees
and costs attached. If the city pays
$4,000 for it's part of the paving, the
abutting property owners will be re-
CURED to pay $4,000. If the city
pays 100000 (the amount of the bond
issue), for its part, the abutting
property owners will be assessed
e1G0 mn Tn addition RI fbiS the city'S