Southwest Washington labor press. [volume] (Hoquiam, Wash.) 19??-19??, 1924-08-29

municipality owned public utilities.
AL of the light and power proper
ties Of the public utilities in this
state are assessed in the same man
ner as all other property in this state
is assessed. Taxes are paid upon this
property just as all other taxes are
paid. The amount Of these taxes are
already over two millions a year, over
five thousand dollars day. This two
millions necessarily decreases the
taxes which every other tax payer in
the state is required to pay.
Plant Tax Exempt
All of the property Of the munich
pal plant is now tax exempt and
whenever these plants take over
property which was formerly upon
the tax rolls, that property also be-
comes tax exempt and the taxes upon.
the home owner are again increased.
The success or failure of municipal
ownership can only be determined
when the municipal plant is required
to perform the same service and
meet the same obligations as the
public utilities. Sincere advocates of
municipal ownership admit this and
are willing to submit to this test.
When the light and power company
develops a water power plant in this
state, it Immediately starts paying
taxes upon the investment just the
same as every other manufacturing
concern and every other homeowner.
This tax averages with all the light
and power companies, 900 per cent
Of their gross earnings. Out Of every
one hundred dollars of gross revenue
which the companies receive, they pay
back in taxes $3.50. This is in the
nature of an annual rental for the
use of these developed water powers.
Municipal ownership advocates main
tain that all the water powers in
Washington belong to all the people
of the state. They have never main
tanned that they belonged either to
Seattle or Tacoma. If then these
two cities are to develop the water
powers belonging TO- all the people of
the state they should also pay rem
tai in the form Of taxes to compen-
safe all Of the people of the state in
their use. What benefit does the tax
payer in Spokane or Okanogan coun-
ty now derive from the development
of a water power, which they state
he as a citizen owns, when it is de-
veloped by the City of Seattle or Ia
coma?
The argument that a tax on NUM-
cipally owned light and power prop
critics would increase rates is GER
tainly a confession of weakness.
Public utilities furnishing the light
and power service are today paying
over per cent of their gross earn
Iings in taxes and yet are able to
compete rate for rate with the mu-
nicipally owned plants operating in
their district. The city of Seattle
is a fair comparison. The rates
charged by the privately owned util-
ity and the municipal plant are iden-
teal for all classes of service, al
though the private owned company
maintains a heavy burden of taxation.
In Spokane the average residence
consumer pays less for his electric
service than does the Seattle con-
sumner, although Spokane has no mu-
nicipal plant and the public utility
operating in that city pays in taxes
$40 out of every 500 gross revenue
it receives. If municipal ownership
is the success claimed, why does it
fear equal competition?
Negative Argument
The strongest advocates of state
control have been the power concerns.
Hence the control in the various
states has not resulted in fair rates
for light and power. For this reason
the people of the West have chosen
competition as in all other classes OF
business. There is no difference in
this commodity from any other, no
mystery about the business or no
extra brains needed. A city can
therefore compete and manage light
and power as easily as it can manage
streets, parks or water systems. There
is then no more need Of state super
fConkinslad On PAGE Fivel