Little Falls herald. [volume] (Little Falls, Morrison County, Minn.) 1889-1950, 1921-07-22
THE REFERENDUM

dinance recently passed over Mayor
Bergheim IS veto by the city council,
by which ordinance it is sought to pur-
chase certain lots located west of the
knights Of Columbus building, former
" the Harrison & Peterson building,
on Broadway East, for park purposes,
was filed with the city clerk Wednes-
day by the mayor. A perusal Of the
list Of 221 signers shows that it is rep
resentative of those engaged in the
various lines in our city, and contains
three times the number Of signers re-
CURED for such a petition, and it is
stated by the mayor that the sigma
lures could have easily been doubled.
Among the signers, it is said, are some
who favor the ordinance, but wished
to see the matter voted upon. It is
natural to presume, however, that in
the main they are opposed.
The petition, as per form prescribed
in the charter, asks for repeal OF the
ordinance or a submission Of the same
to the voters Of the city at the general
election next spring. The city clerk
will certify the names on the petition
and the same will be presented to the
council at it's meeting next Wednesday
evening, and within the next ten days,
if the ordinance is not repealed, the date
On which the matter is to be voted upon
is to be passed upon by the council.
1t is within it's province to either have
same voted upon at a special election
or at the general election next spring.
1t would be idle to say that there
is not distinct division of opinion
among the citizens Of Little Falls as to
the ACCESSIBILITY of the purchase Of the
park lots, viewed as to the initial cost,
improvements, limitations Of owner
ship, the proposed future purchase Of
additional ground for the project as
laid out, loss in taxes and upkeep OF
same. There is very little argument
but that the project as whole as pro-
posed is an excellent idea, and that
those supporting the project believe
that the acquisition OF these lots and
later the additional ground, would ul-
timately innure to the benefit of the
city, but we believe that the decision
will rest mainly on the proposition as
to whether the majority Of the citi-
zens feel the necessity Of the purchase
and as to whether they feel they can
afford to pay the increased taxes for
the benefits that would result.
This will be the first vote under the
referendum provision contained in the
new charter, and is one Of the provi-
sions which added great strength in
the charters easy passage. 1t gives
the people the right to decide certain
matters, irrespective Of the action OF
the council, Gin other words, exercising
their right Of differing in opinion) and
could have been brought into use by
the people if the mayor had signed the
ordinance, as well. In fact, the ordi'
nance should have been initiated by pc
tition of the people, which under the
circumstances, would seemed to have
been the best procedure, as it was gen
orally expected there would be a refer
endum if the ordinance passed.
In that case, the council and mayor
would not have had to pass On the
same at all, except that the council
would have fixed the date of election.
If the election is to be held next
spring, it is long way off, and there
will be many other matters, no doubt,
to come up between now and then,
which may need the united effort of our
citizens, so it behooves those jealous
to carry their point to "tote fair'' so
that previous to the election and there
after cooperation generally will not
suffer.
The Herald, at the proper time, will
be pleased to give those for and against
the ordinance reasonable space in
which to present their views to its
readers.