The Ocala banner. (Ocala, Marion County, Fla.) 1883-194?, 1914-10-23
ocALA, FLORIDA, FRIDAY. OCTOBER %, 1914

~SA 0POA q p4OF1S1On Which, 81 Care
lessly safeguards. the funds provided
for redemption purposes.
Regarding street paving, | asserted,
They are expensive, and should be
constructed, if financially able, when
and where needed, provided the prop
erty owners affected thereby, ana who
will be required to pay the greater
part OF the cost, are willing to incur
such expense
Does the Banner favor the forced
paving of streets whether needed or
not, and in opposition to the wishes
OF majority of the abutting property
owners, who will have to pay two
thirds of the cost?
All street paving, so far done, has
been accomplished without resorting
to bond issue. If there is any cry
ing need or demand for the paving of
all, or a part of any particular street,
| respectfully submit that the citys
one-third can easily be raised by the
levy of tax for street purposes, at
rate much less than would be re-
CURED to raise funds for the payment
OF the annual interest, and provide
sinking fund to retire the 10000
bond issue. In this way improve
ments could be made gradually, from
time to time, when and where most
needed and demanded, without enter
ing upon general and forced system
of paving as contemplated by an i'm
mense bond issue. AS stated in my
former article, the city pays one
third. and the abutting property own.
ers the other two-thirds. If the city
pays 100000 for its one-third part,
the abutting property is liable for
100000.
You refer to the municipal ice plant
feature as a mere 'fbug-a-boo' to
brighten timid voters. If this be true,
then there has been a complete
change of base on the part of the
most active promoters of this bond
issue. The editor of the Banner, and
many other leading and influential cit
liens, have persistently and strongly
urged that municipal ice plant is
not only necessity, but that it falls
within the classification of public
utilities" If this is a 'bug-a-boo," no
good reason has as yet been assigned
for it's insertion into the ordinance.
cannot believe that the law-making
body of the city would endanger the
legality of the entire bond issue by
the insertion of mere "bIg-a-boo"
provision for "bug-a-boo" purposes. l!
the bond issue is authorized, it oc-
ours to me that the council could con-
sistently, and with much reason, con-
tend that they had been directed by
the voters to install a municipal ice
plant, and that they would proceed to
do so, by cutting down the contem-
plated water works improvements, or
by utilizing the remaining $4,000 au-
thoriZed under the former ordinance.
still contend, the Banners able edi-
torial to the contrary notwithstand-
ing, that it is not good policy or expe-
dent for the municipality to engage
in the ice business, or in any other
ordinary industrial enterprise, in op-
position to, or in competition with, the
individual citizen. If this policy is
to prevail, we may next be called
upon to establish a municipal laun
dry, a municipal bakery, or munich
val printing press.
With all due Difference, cannot
see the force of your argument that
this ordinance is wisely framed so as
to force the voter ito take all or moth
ing"
One Improvement is in no wise de-
pendent upon the other, although
there may be preference in the order
of construction, and there is no sound
I6dSOu WHY dll SAOuAu UC PAON1uOO IOA :
at the same time. Furthermore. if
any one project should be dependent
upon any other, the citizen. if permit
ted to vote on the same separately
would cast his vote accordingly. The
ordinance proceeds upon the assump-
tion that the voter is incapable of de-
Gliding for himself, and is at variance
with the whole theory of the law
which requires that bonding PROPOSE
tons shall first be authorized by a !
vote of the people.
Many enterprising and capable citi-
zens, deeply interested in the city's |
welfare. think that canal from Ocala
to Silver Springs, and trolley line
connecting the same points, are sad
ly needed, and if constructed would