The Ocala banner. (Ocala, Marion County, Fla.) 1883-194?, 1914-09-18
MAYORS VETO OF THE BOND
ORDINANCE
Ocala. Fla, Sept. Is, 1914.
Honorable City Council of ocala:


return, without my approval:
AN Ordinance Entitled An Ordi-
nance to Provide for the Issue of
Bonds of the City of Ocala, Florida,
to the amount of S305. 100000; $780,
100000 of Said Bonds to be Used for
the Construction of Sewers Within
the Corporate Limits of the City of
Ocala; and $100,00000 of Said
Bonds to be Used for teh Purpose
of Paving and Improving the Streets
of Said City: $50,000.00 of Said
Bonds to be Used for the Purpose
of Constructing Public Buildings
and Parks in Said City Within the
Corporate Limits of Said City, and
100000 of Said Bonds to oe
Used for the Purpose of Equipping,
Extending and Improving the Wa
ter Works Plant and System of
Said City, and Erecting and Con-
structing in Connection Herewith
an Ice Plant for the Manufacture
of Artificial Ice. Also to Submit
to the Registered Voters of Said
City of Ocala the Question of the
Issuing of Said Bonds in Amount of
$305, 100000"
Passed September 4, 1914.
And, as grounds for my disapprov-
al and objections, respectfully state
the following:
First. In view of the great finan-
cial depression, resulting largely
from the European war, it is not an
opportune time to inaugurate a sys-
tenn of public improvements involv-
ing the floating of bonds and the ex-
penditure of such a large sum of mon
ey, necessitating the imposition of
large additional taxes against the cit
liens already heavily oppressed by
burdens of taxation. Great difficulty
will be experienced in floating the
bonds in these times of financial de-
preston, and the improvements con-
templated, so far as they may be
within the charter rights of the city
of Ocala, can be postponed without
serious detriment
Second. The ordinance, as passed
and submitted would leave to the vot-
er no discretion or option to favor
any one or more of the projects and
oppose the other, but he is required
to vote for or against all. In my opin-
ion, any ordinance contemplating a
scheme of such extensive and dis
tinct improvements, and involving in
the aggregate an expenditure of $685.
10000, should be so framed as to per-
NIT the voter to express his approval
or disapproval of each project con-
templated, and thereby to allow each
to stand upon it's own merits, and
not require the voter to take all or
nothing. For instance, if the voter
should desire bonds for the construc-
ton of sewers, and should oppose the
construction of municipal ice plant,
or any of the other projects mention
ed, he should be permitted to so vote,
and thus obtain a fair expression of
the voters as to the character of pub
lie improvements he may favor, and
those which he may oppose.
Third. Personally, l have been in
favor of a municipal ice plant, and it
is with reluctance that / call atten-
ton to that feature of the ordinance
relating to the construction and erec-
ton of a municipal ice plant in con-
nection with the water works plant
system. do not profess to be learned
in the law, but my attention has been
called to article 8, section 5, of the
constitution of the state of Florida as
follows: Sec. S. The legislature
shall authorize the several counties
and incorporated cities or towns in
the state to assess and impose taxes
for county and municipal purposes,
and for no other purposes" The Leg
islature of the state, am Informed,
has not by general law, declared that
an ice plant Is a municipal purpose,
nor has the city of Ocala, by general
law, or special charter, been granted
any specific right or authority to con-
struct, operate and maintain a NUM-
cipal ice plant. The question is.
therefore, squarely presented as to
whether or not, in the absence of leg
islative authority, an ice plant can be
designated as a municipal purpose
within the meaning of the constitu-
tional provision above quoted. If it
is a municipal purpose, then would
not steam or electric power laun-
dry, or any other enterprise useful to
citizens generally, be likewise mu-
nicipal purpose? No franchise what
ever from the city is needed as a con-
dition precedent for. any citizen to
own and operate an ice plant, and he
is free to engage in the same just as
in any other industrial enterprise not
requiring city franchise. If it is