The Ocala evening star. [volume] (Ocala, Fla.) 1895-1943, 1914-10-10
THE BUNCH BOND ORDINANCE
To the self-Thinking voters of

What | may say in this article is
confined exclusively to the bond is
sue to be held October 9th, as ALL
objections urged do not apply to the
bond election to be held on the fol-
lowing day
The bunch bond ordinance provid-
es for lump issue Of $305 900 to be
applied as follows: Sewers, $780,
900; paving streets, 100000; pub
lie buildings and parks, $50 900;
improving waterworks and CONSTRUCT
ing ice plant, S55, 600.
The principal reasons which will
induce me to vote against this pro-
posed bond issue, are as follows:
First
The voter is allowed no discretion;
He must take all of the proposed inn
sewerage and opposes the municipal
ice plant. or either of the other
projects, he is denied the privilege
of expressing a desire for one or
more, and his opposition to the
other. The ordinance could have
been easily framed so as to have per-
united a vote at the same election,
and without additional expense, on
each proposition separately. and thus
allow each project to stand or fall
when measured by its own merits.
For some unexplained reason this
course was not pursued, although the
matter was specifically called to the
attention of the law-making body of
the city, and the correction, if desir-
ed, could have beeen easily made.
Ia effect, the reply to the voters
demand for sewerage is: You shall
not have it, unless you also take puD-
| lie buildings and parks at the cost Of
/ $780, 900, and the other improve
ments we have rendered you under
the ordinance
To the demand for an extension
and improvement of the water works
system, the answer in effect is: 1--WE
refuse to give you any relief in that
direction unless you also take a mu-
nicipal ice plant at the cost of con-
struction within the limit of i$55 900,
and all the other projects contem-
plated under the ordinance.
And so it is as to each project, the
voter must take all or nothing.
Second
r o,17 = 6vyr, T@o1;ov IN IN old fiyoa
doctrine that the cfty-except in
| those matters relating to public util-
ities-s should never engage in indus
trial enterprises requiring no fran
chise from the city, and which are
open to the individual citizen. On
the contrary, every reasonable en-
couragement should be offered and
extended to induce the individual cit
fzen, in a corporate capacity or other
wise, to locate with US and establish
manufacturing or other industrial
enterprises in our midst, thereby
bringing in new capital, providing
additional employment, and adding
greatly to the taxable values of our
couragement has already secured for
US a full, complete and adequate ice
plant, under individual ownership,
now in active operation, rendering
efficient and adequate service to the
public at moderate and reasonable
prices when compared with prices
prevailing in near or contiguous
territory
Entirely regardless of the question
of policy, no one, so far as | have
heard, has yet pointed out any neees-
sity for the expenditure of thousands
of dollars in the construction of an
additional or municipal ice plant. Yet
the voter who conscientiously oppos-
es this, is criticised and iheralded as
"a pessimist-a reactionary (what
I ever that term may mean, and OBJ
structionist-and an enemy to tht
city's progress and development.
Will some progressive, optimisti,
boomer please give some good sub
stantial reason why none of thes,
(, contemplated improvements shall
be made unless the city goes into tn,
ice business in competition with tn,
2 individual citizen? Are these publ
a Improvements of so little importance
S and so little needed, that they can b
made to depend upon whether or no
n the city will go into the ice business
:, If so, they can we'll wait a more Oh
: perfume time. Entirely aside fror
/ any legal questions presented, thi
u feature of the ordinance, if standin
e alone, would induce me to vot
/. against the lump bond issue. AS
/ view it matter of principle in whic
, firmly believe, is involved, and
ol would oppose a municipal ic