Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1915-08-02

/
my resolution in the Council because
| OF IN" other insistent demands for
money and the slender state of the
citys finances. However, ] think the
| tune mas come when we may safely
begin preliminary work in this dircc-
ton.
INCREASE IN TAX
WOULD PAY INTEREST
1T is hardship TO force people re-
siding in the western section of the
city to come way downtown to Ninth
street TO cross the river \ bridge
across the James AT about Meadow
street would make for wonderful
DEVELOPMENT OF that section of the CITY
on both sides OF the river. and the in
come from taxation on increased prop
crty values would soon be more than
large enough TO take care Of inter-
est charges on the bonds that would
/ have to be issued for this improve
ment."
IT is the purpose of the Clay Ward
Councilman 10 have his resolution re-
ferrcd first TO the Administrative
Board and 10 ask that that body make
report on the feasibility and expe-
diency of the plan. Later 1t will go
for approval to the Public Utility and
Finance Committees. 1t is estimated
that modern concrete and steel
bridge could be constructed across the
river at the foot of Meadow Street for
between S25o,oO0 to 100000. II would
cut down the distance from that sec
ton Of the city to Forest Hill Park by
between four and five miles.
COUNCIL DOCKET is
SHORTEST IN MONTHS
As the result of the light commit
tee work of July and the general sus-
pension of Legislative activity during
that month, the Common Council to- .
night will face the shortest docket
in many months. There are mum
Der of minor ordinances dealing with
the closing and opening of alleys but
in the absence Of any contests these
will bc passed as a matter of routine
Councilman 7. Gray iaddon. of
Clay Ward, has announced his inten-
ton of introducing an ordinance
amending the recent jitney-bus or
dinancc so as to strike from that meas
urc the section requiring jtney-b bus
owners TO execute a $1,000 indemnity
bond for each car operated in the case
Of single cars and a $500 bond for
each additional car operated by. the
same owner.
LOCAL SURETY COMPANY
WRITING JIrNEY BONDS
Mr. Haddon's amendment is inspir-
ed by the opposition that has been
registered by jitney owners to the
bonding requirement OF the new law
II is claimed that the one surety COM
pany in the city which has undertake
en- 10 write jitney bonds charges a
premium of 500 on each Il 900 and
that this cost, when added TO the Ii
cense charges fixed by the ordinance,
a bsorhs all the profits OF jitney opera
ton.
The bond feature of the new ord
nance was the most acutely contested
point in the whole measure when il
was being deba ted in the committees
and on the floor OF the Council. In fix !
Of the opinion that il was laying down
a reasonable condition TO insure the
safety OF the passenger and pedestrian. !
BOND FEATURE Is PART
OF MANY ORDINANCES !
In framing the jitnev-bus ordinance.
the Ordinance Committee consulted
the regulations that have been put in
force by other cities. particularly byl
the cities on the Pacific Coast. where
the jitney has been the subject OF
practically every ordinance that was
considered there was a bond provi- !
sion varying from $4,000 10 10000 for
each car.
In view OF the controversy that
ragged over the bonding provision Of
the present ordinance. il is taken for |
granted tina; the Haddon amendment
eliminating this section Will meet with
sharp opposition The amendment is !
being urged chiefly by jitney operators
and their friends, who regard the |
bonding requirement az a discrimina-
ton against them in favor of taNicabs !
and for-hire automobiles. which are !
not subject To the ordinance.