The New York herald., 1921-12-19
WOULD VEST RIGHT TO SPEND
CITY CASH IN ELECTIVE BODY

telligence on the fundamental mat
ters OF finance and expenditure, which
are not now in any adequate way
brought home to the voter when he
gives expression to his views by the
ballot
"Seventh--Furnish an opportunity,
now lacking, TO the administrative
officers of the city TO give adequate
| time and attention to administration.
'"The urgent reasons for a change in
the system of city government now In
force are apparent, and may be sum
married. as follows:
1.-THE maintenance OF the city in
equal TO meeting it's public necessities. IS
| of the first importance TO the munic-
| pality and It's citizens and TO the State.
| The city debt has increased every year
| since the city was organized. The gross
| funded debt in 1898 was $3i4, 900, 600, OF
which S212, 900 had been incurred for
non-revenue producing purposes. This
debt Exclusive of general fund bonds>
had increased in 1921 to $1,246, 600, 900,
of which SS35, 900 was non-revenue
producing. In addition to this the city
carries temporary debt of approx
mately 100000. 600, which Is not COM
puted In determining the debt limit.
THE tax levy has kept pace with the
growth of the debt. The budget in 1898
was $77, 900, 900 and in 1921 S345, 600, 900.
while the per capita charge for taxes has
risen from s23.12 in 1898 TO S59.77 in
1921.
THE tax roll has increased from up
| wards of S3,000.0 100000 in 1898 to s10,-
1S6, 6,207,279 in 1921. the rate of increase
being reasonably uniform from 1904 to
1921, when the real estate assessment
jumped from $500, 100000 to $9,972,-
100000 in an attempt to keep within
| the debt and tax limit The exact in
creases are not yet obtainable for the
year 1922, but the preliminary estimate
| furnished the Comptroller by the Depart
ment OF Taxes places the 1922 assess
ment at $10.500, 100000.
Tax and Debt Limit.
Without taking UP now the pending
questions relating to the debt limit ana
tax limit. 1t is beyond controversy tha;
the city is using its entire taxing power
for ordinary expenses, In the face of
urgent needs for essential public ser
vice--schools, rapid transit, docks. mar
kets and marginal railway. Instead
| of furnishing evidence OF the city's
| financial soundness. the rapid rise in
assessments indicates the exhaustion of
the city's credit. and a manipulation oe
the taxing power to conceal II. 1t may
be added that in 1921 the city found 1t
necessary for the first time to resort to
the doubtful expedicnt of basing its tax
limit on the current assessment rather
than on the assessment OF the year be-
fore, as heretofore practiced in other
nf hn taf 60 nd 1aA n,,f
budget indicates that the same doubtful
expedient Of increasing the taxing power
Will be resorted to in 1922 in an attempt
to keep within the constitutional tax
limit. The Comptroller has publicly ad-
vised the Board of Aldermen of tho
necessity of cutting $4,000, 600, out of
the appropriation for schools to keep
within such increased limit.
Such u showing gives no promise Of
recovery under the present municipal
organization, but foreshadows financial
disaster.
1T is apparent from the number of
amendments to the charter since it's re-
enactment in 1901 that It is not laid
down on reasonably permanent lines.
AS appears by the session laws. the
charter has been amended or modified
by 1866 separate laws. exclusive OF
general laws affecting the whole State.
There were 116 such laws in 1920 and
50 in 1921. Many OF these statutes fix
salaries of city or county officers; SO
such statutes have been passed in the
last four years. Five hundred and five
bills amending the charter have been
vetoed by the Mayor since 1907. and |
with the bills introduced but not passed !
by the Legislature form n vast mass oe
legislation claiming the attention of the /
LEGISLATURE.
This legislation. whether passed or
not, results:
(a) In constant disturbance OF |
municipal finance and administration.
frequently creating uncertainty Of pur- |
pose and policy in the conduct OF the |
city government.
OBJ In causing n feeling of resent !
ment and dissatisfaction over .State |
interference with matters that are
purely local In their nature.
(c) In dividing powers OF municipal |
control in the city between municiral |
authorities and the members OF tho |
Legislature from the city, who gem
orally control such legislation. Thls |
results In frequent differences between |
the city authorities and the Legisla- !
ture, and through his power of ap-
proval and veto of city bills, between |
the Mayor and the Board OF Estimate. |
The Mayor is thus enabled from time |
to time to secure legislation affecting |
the Government OF the city through
the Legislature which he could not |
obtain through the Board OF Estimate. |
(d) In an equally unfortunate effect |
on the State as the Legislature Is thus
occupied unnecessarily with local af-
fairs to the exclusion or detriment or
general legislation.
These conditions arc the cause OF
.Jt tcea Ate-Fo AffA
quently such dissatisfaction is directed
toward the State Government, although
such legislation could not be enactsd
without the active support of city men,
bers of the Legislature and the consent
OF the Mayor
THE present system has worked badly |
and calls for basic changes in the char
ter and in the relations of the city to the
state. Otherwise present evils will not