Montpelier examiner. [volume] (Montpelier, Idaho) 1895-1937, 1916-03-10
BURRELL OPPOSES
THE BOND ISSUE

Editor Examiner: Availing myself
of the opportunity afforded by your
standing invitation to the people Of
our city to use the columns of your
paper in discussing questions Of public
import, ! desire to state some of the
reasons which impel me to vote
against the proposed bond issue for
the purpose Of building a city hall.
In the first place, while ! admit
the necessity Of having some desirable
meeting place for the city council and
more comfortable quarters for the
city clerk, / believe there are other
things we need so much more, and we
cannot have all Of them including the
city hall. | am obliged to vote and
work against this bond issue. The
interest on the bonds will not be less
than $3.50 a year and the expenses
of maintainance, such as janitor sery-
ices, heating, lighting, ETC., would
amount to at least $3.50 more, 50 that
the annual cost to the city would not
be much IL any less, and would prob
ably be more, than $1,000. | believe
this expense is out of all preparation
to the benefits to be derived from
having the building. The present
quarters are not as good as they
should be, but with very little expense
they can be made as comfortable and
pleasant as are the offices OF the aver
age place of business in the city,
where other men are required TO work.
Notwithstanding the expenses, l would
be favorable to this improvement, for
/ want to live in q progressive and
up-to-date community, provided we
now had some improvements that are
absolutely necessary, and which must
come or we will be shortsighted and
limprovident in the extreme. We should
do as many Of our sister towns like
Pocatello, Idaho Falls, Blackfoot and
others are doing, namely, provide the
things first that are of first import
lance.
! have heard some persons say that
even though the cost each year Is con
siderable It will not be much for each
taxpayer. Personally, ] cannot sub.
scribe to this sort Of reasoning, fol
i believe that we should invest tht
/ public money as we would our own. I
we had money In plenty and thcrs
were not other places TO put It whers
! lit would yield greater returns, then l
would be all right to build city hall
but at this juncture in the city's ii
nancial condition and with 80 man!
, public improvements that we need .
much not yet provided, ! consider !
, both injudicious and unwiBe to vot
these bonds.
1t Is said that we have no place .
hold public meetings. ] grant this
D but / answer by saying that we coul
better afford to rent the opera hous
several times year at $50 meetin
{ than to incur an annual expense o
$1,000 or more in maintaining an
keeping up q city hall.
t We need Jail, SO people say, bu
e we could build one for very sma
sum as compared with the S25, 900 v
:, are asked to vote bonds for.
x In my judgment, the greatest nee
we have in the way of a public IN
e rrovement, and it will continue 10 !
so until we get IT, is a sewer system
The town is fast becoming hone!
e combed with cesspools that will 500
n be, If not already, menace to healI
This Is not merely q need, 1t Is 4 CT,
N ing necessity, and IL we would Eaf
"A guard the health, and consequent
the well being of our people, 1t is 3
~ soluteiy essential that this matt
as should at once engage our most ear
est and thoughtful attention. II "
" be very expensive TO put in q sew
" system, but expensive or not, we mt
:. have it, and we cannot at this time ;
g ford to bond for something that
d. Of so much less importance. ! wol
vote and work for a bond issue 81
&c fieient to put in a thoroughly effieie
W. sewer system II IL should requ
500, 900 or more and would eonsie
Il q wise and judicious thing TO do, !
lT- cannot give my vote 20 the city b
lie bond issue until we have provided t
other and more pressing need.
/ have heard the argument used q
he under the Law We cannot bond
cir enough money now. for there Is a Iii
- to the amount any city can be bon
for, TO put in 3 sewer system. To