The Washington herald., 1914-03-01
MUNICIPAL OWNERSHIP.
some small Public service Corpora
tIors that Were Not a Success.


Some Of our subscribers have made in
quiry as TO the danger to public utilities
investments from the current agitation
for municipal ownership. The peril from
that source does not appear 10 US to be
very grave. Certainly the experiences Of
the oities which have already gone into
municipal ownership Is not such as TO
encourage any great immediate extension
of the movement bright light Is
thrown on this question by an interesting
publication. "Defunct Municipal Lighting
Plants" the ninth edition of which has
just been ISSUED by the Municipal Owner
ship Publishing Company.
This publication gives a list OF % mu-
nicipal lighting plants which have been
sold to private enterprises, together with
an explanation Of the case by some Off
cfal or representative citizen Of the mu-
| nicipss.ity.
The following information comes from
the mayor OF Bowling Green. Ohio: Our
city ventured in the natural gas business
in opposition to home company. II
went in at 900 and sold out to the com
pany three years later at one-tenth the
cost of the speculation-s5.0o0.
The electric light plant of Beverly.
Ohio. was sold after several years of
service The village clerk explained:
The village could get no satisfactory
service from the plant in the manner It
was being handled. The plant has been
sold TO local parties with the hope OF
getting better service in the future
The town clerk of Charlotte, Mich.
writes: "Our city was dissatisfied with
municipal ownership and sold its plant
and entire outfit to the Consumers
Power Company. which is now giving eN
celIent satisfaction"
In 1897 in Charlotte. y. Y, municipal
electric plant was installed at a cost OF
s.5 900 and the village clerk writes: THE
village disposed of its distributing sys-
tenn to the Rochester Railway and Light
Company on January !. 1873 Owing TO
the fact that il was run down so that
II would require the expenditure OF
considerable sum of money. the people
voted TO sell it for the sum of S2.'0o
Evart, Mich, installed a municipal
plant in 1880 at a cost Of $4,000 and in
1912, after granting franchise to n
private company to furnish electricity
for light and power, the village clerk
writes: The real cause for the failure
Of municipal operation was due to the
fact that We sold electricity for less
than the cost OF production. Without
making complete inventory could not
find the exact figures of our loss, but
don't think 1t would exceed 500 or
s. 00O"
A letter from the mayor Of Fulda.
Mimi. contains the following: Our plant
was not sold. but given away in l9Os:
hut the deed was not executed unui
five years later. as according TO con-
tract the present owner was to run II
for five years Tin paymenO for it Inc
reason for giving il away was that II
rem aboutS 81 900 behind every year Ihe
original cost was about 5000
In 1885 an electric light plant was in
stalled in Galena. Ill. at cost OF SlS'-
Oc0 and was sold in July. lSs. Tor siS;-
oa,. The plant had been distinct fail-
u,e and one account of il says: Its
p,anagement was changed as ottcn as
new political cliques gained power ana
al times there was no street lilunlna-
tion AT all. The commercial service was
inferior" ,,,,uod
An electric light plant was lhstaneo
in 1900 at a cost of S.WO IN luka' miss
In December, 1895. il was leased because
~ the ..difficulty in keeping a competent
electrician" letter from the mayor
contains the following information: The
town still owns its plant, but has leased
Il to a private party for five years. IL
has been an expense to the town, mas
rot paid anything. and is not likely 10
do So
Prior to the leasing of/the LockPort'
ILL.,, electric plant TO the Sanitary De-
partment OF Chicago for nominal con-
the superintendent wrote: I'VE are rum
ming about 500 to $50 in debt every
month. due to political handling Too
many political friends and too low
rates, &c"
Five years ago the mayor Of Pittsheld,
H.. gave the following reason FOR the
sale of the electric plant: Cheaper TO
pay the Pit;sfeld Electric Company than
to do It ourselves. We ran 1t ourselves
for several years, and have had it run
by contract at least five years, saving
money BY contracting II to outsiders.
These are but samples of most OF the
replies ELECTED by the Municipal Owner
ship Publishing Company's questions
Nearly every one of the 80 defunct plants
became defunct because the municipality
could obtain better and cheaper services
from private corporations than from Its
own plant.
The electric plant Of Lewisburg. Tenn.
was installed in 1903 at a cost OF so,0Oo
and was sold i'm 1905 for $500
Under municipal ownership. Leroy, n.
Y, found that operating expenses alone
exceeded by 60 per cent the entire cost OF
LIGHTS under private management.
An electric distributing plant. installed
at a cost of $1,000. in Pullman. Wash.
was sold in 1915 for $500 and twenty
year contract was made with private
company which would involve a large
saving to the city.
These examples were picked at random
from the - items in the book which
would make interesting reading for many
Investors who feel that their public
utilities holdings are likely to be injured
by The introduction of municipai owusr-