Missouri Valley times. [volume] (Missouri Valley, Iowa) 1874-1931, 1916-09-21
WHO SHALL VOTE
ON BONDS FoR
GOOD ROADS.
BY b. w. Norris.

There is "a fear among some
farmers that they might be out
voted by the cities i'm any general
road bonding plan. II appeared
in the resolutions of the state
convention of county supervisors
and is often mentioned i'm general
discussion, but consent seems to
be given by both sides i'm this con-
trovcrsS that the people should
have the right to vote bonds if the
voting is done by those who pay
the tax. find This concession
even among those who oppose
bonds.
Lets consider existing law on
that subject.
Ii county bonds were voted To-
day for the Improvement of coun-
ty roads they could be paid out of
he funds now available for coln-
lty roads or the board of super
Wilson's might make a general levy
under Section zoo of the code. j
have the opinion of d bond COM
pany's attorney as 10 this:
LII paid out. of funds already
provided the l-mill levy would be
made upon all taxable property in
The county. both City and farm.
and the auto license would fall
upon auto owners in both town
and county. Only the 2-mill levy.
would be taxed to rural property
alone and this 2-mill levy yields
only one-third OF the money now
available for county roads. Thus
under existing taxes, two-thirds
lOf the money is now raised for
IcOunly roads from a lax levy and
an auto license which falls upon
both town and county property.
However. we could not COM
|plain as to who voted bonds which
were to be paid out of tax lcvics
which are going to he made any
way. for there would he no i'm
.|crcase in taxes involved. AS IA
matter of fact the average county
lis already being taxed at the rate
of $1,000, 600 for county roads
during the next 20 years. whereas
the cost of grading and crawling
The average county road system is
|lcss-lhan half that sum and the
law already limits tho indebted
mess of counties to less than.
S5OO.OOO on an average. so it is
moi likely that ii would be neccs-
sary to levy additional taxes if
bonds were voted for county
roads.
If bonds were issued for bridg-
|es the present bridge leNies are
now assessed to all property ex-
cept i'm cities Of the first class, of
which there are only a few. so
there is no problem as to who
should vote bridge bonds.
There is not so very much inc
quality. either. in a county fax
road iwo-ihirds Of which is levied
on all property and only one-third
upon farm property. In town.
when streets are improved. all of.
the cost is assessed to adjacent
property on the theory that il has
been benefited in value by the
Improvement. III this is true,
farm property will derive some
special benefit from road inn
provcmcnt which is covered by
levying one-lhird of the TAX upon
farm property alone.
This brings us, TO The other al
Tentative. In ease bonds were
voted TO be paid from a general
levy under Section 400, the lax
would fall upon all property. both
city and rural. 50 all citizens
should vote.
Likewise. If there should be al
law enacted for the creation of !
districts or township
districts the bonds would then be
from tax levies on property
within the district and only those
the district should vote on
the bonds.
About the only inequality in-
volved in voting bonds arises
from the fact that many people
would vote who do not own prop
rrty to be taxed. bYt we have long
with this condition in voting
school bonds and il has never yeti
US any harm. In actual
practice in At per cent Of ell the