The Waterbury Democrat., 1937-08-14
Moral Obligations

This is the time of the year when accu- sationS and charges are apt to be made about public officials and the like. We are rapidly approaching an election, one which promises to be as interesting as those in Waterbury have been of recent years, although the outcome has been rather assured. In such a situation a person must always sift the truth from the half-truth or the equivocation. But when flat statements are made and accepted as such throughout the state, there is definite moral obligation on the part of the one issuing the statement to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
 All of which is merely lead to re- printed editorial in Hartford paper recently. It bore this caption - City Hall Boosts Rents. It was credited to the Waterbury Republican. It was an editors comment on a letter printed simultaneously with the editorial and on the same page. The letter was not re- printed in the Hartford paper. The gist of the editorial was that people are leav- ing the city to build homes in nearby towns to escape the "high" tax rate. It is the sole reason for every emigration of a family from this city to Cheshire, Mid dlebury, Watertown, Prospect or any other surrounding town sice Mayor Frank Hayes went into office. The editor didn't say this in so many words, but 1t would have been much better if he had.
 This statement is made - Bad gov ernmental management of Waterbury, pushing up the tax rate, thus drives out new development. And what is the re- suit? Such property as is left must carry the burden alone. Of course the out come is high rents. The much cussed landlord will not be left holding the bag ..." We are concerned chiefly with the clause - pushing up the tax rate". For the information of the Hartford papers or any other which reprinted this editorial complaint in all good faith we urge glance at the records. They show that during the years Mayor Hayes has ad- ministered the affairs of Waterbury there was only one year when the tax rate did not drop.
 When he was elected in 1929 the tax rate for 1880 was set by the preceding administration at 41.92 mills, which in- cluded a special two mill tax. The first year that the Hayes administration set up budget and levied taxes -- the rate was set at $500 mills. To day the rate is 3150 the present rate is the same as it was last year, this accounting for our reference to one failure to reduce the taxes. If that isn't indicative of some regard for civic progress and the welfare of the taxpaying property owners, then our method of reasoning is wrong. AS further proof of good management, we ask that similar chart of taxes in other cities be made. It can be found that without exception over the same period of years the rate moved up, not down.
 And when this check-up is finished, perhaps some one will remain interested enough to see how assessments in the large cities, as well as their surrounding suburbs, compare. Or better still some body might urge that officials of all large cities be thrown out of office, because of the migration of property-owning tax payers from their midst to the surround ing villages and towns! Waterbury is not exceptional in this respect.