The Twin Falls times. [volume] (Twin Falls, Idaho) 1905-1916, 1916-08-24
COUNTY DIVISION
FACTS AND FIGURES
Taxes Certain of Increase Both Sides Of Proposed Line
Dvision-Greatest at First the Old Side But Increas
ingly Greater on the New.
A ELF-STULTIFYING PROPOSITION

Who can give one valid reason for
dividing Twin Falls county? There are
many and strong reasons for letting it
alone! In fact division can be favor
ed by no fair citizen who is aware of
the facts and who does not have pro-
pperty for sale, or the itch for a county
officei
Please examine carefully the map of
the county published herewith. EX-
cepting the small projections along
the Snake River, northward and east
ward, it is a compact tract of land
averaging Al miles north and south
by 381A miles east and west. The pro-
position is to divide it north and south
along the line between ranges 10 and
16. one mile west of Filler, as plainly
indicated by the double line on the
map. This will make two counties,
one averaging As miles north and
south and exactly 201a miles wide;
the other-Twin Falls county-being
. left AZ by Is miles in area.
\ Some of the counties in Idaho, as
first organized, were territorial prin
cipalities and, for that reason alone, it
may have been necessary to divide
them later; but it was never econo-
mical. In the case of this county, it
is neither economical nor necessary!
Take Fremont county, for instance:
This county, before division, was ap-
proximately seventy by one hundred
miles in area-over four times as
large as Twin Falls county. By acts
of legislature approved February IS,
1918. the counties of Madison and JEFF
ferson were erected out of it's terri
tory; and by act approved January &c,
1915, Teton county was taken from
Madison. This evidently brought each
taxpayer nearer to his county seat,
which was especially convenient, since
he must have had to carry up consid-
cradle more tax money than beforel
Here are the figures, to which every
taxpayer in Twin Falls county should
pay especial attention: The report of
the county auditor of Fremont county
for the last fiscal year before division
shows a total expenditure of $633.772
The first available report of each OF
the four county auditors, after djVi-
s}On, shows an aggregate total expen-
Allure of $S3O,210-an increase OF
/$196,43S! And if this is the showing
for the first year, before beginning the
county buildings and other improve
ments which every new county mus
have, what of the future?
The character of the economic result
in the matter of division of Fremont
county is duplicated in each and every
case of county division, but one con
crete example should be sufficient
and we will not cumber this paper
with further statistics along that line
OF course, no one really believes
that the multiple affairs of two coun
ties can be administered so cheapl.
as of one; this Notwithstanding tn
fact that there are those who try t.
talk in that wayl
\ Returning to the situation in thi
\county, careful attention is earnestl
Nsked to the following figures. Stats
tics are dry, but figures don't lie
which is more than you can say c
some politicians. AS the onl
basis for the consideration
taxes, present and prospective, tn
assessed valuation of this county an
particularly the portion thereof the
would appertain to the new and tn
old county, respectively, after div
sion, become of prime Importance. TIL