The Wyandotte news-herald. (Wyandotte, Mich.) 1943-1963, 1945-03-26
Strauss Gantz
Continued FROM Page ID


transferred viii remain with the
commission. The commission has
stated (see page S, 48th annual re-
port) I quote "A larger dividend or
decreased rates would be possible If
1t were not for the contributions
that are made annually to the gen
eFaI funds Of the city"
The true crux Of the question in
volved here-the core Of the apple
50 to Speaks:
Should the people Of Wandette
legalize diversion Of light plant
profits to the city's general fund?
Mr.. Mcdonnell has already pointed
out why diversion is in general a
! very bad policy and how it is in
consistent with true public owner
ship.
Here are some additional reasons
why the people of Wyandotte-not
the politicians - would be cutting
off their own noses to spite their
faces, If they voted in favor of iegei-
izing diversion.
Cd Wyandotte is in a peculiar
situation in that nearly 50e6 of the
taxes comes from several large in
dustrial concerns and subdivision
owners. The vacant land buys no
electricity, hence contributes moth
ing to the profits Of the light plant.
The Alkali, Penn Salt and Brass
Works have their own power
houses. They purchase such a small
amount of electricity from the
municipal plant, and then at such
special low rates-that the profit
realized from them probably amount
to less than $4,000 per year. The
most profitable customers are the
residential and commercial con-
sumerS.
Up to 1892 the City. paid the
Municipal Service Commission for
street lighting and hydrant service
just as tho it were buying this serv-
ice from a privately owned utility.
The charter requires this. Now the
point is this. If you divert $4,000
from light plant profits-which
comes almost entirely from residen-
tial and commercial consumers-to
pay for street lighting and hydrant
service, you are shifting the entire
cost Of these services onto the light
consumer. Whereas II you pay for
these services from tax revenue
funds the industrial concerns and
subdivision owners pay nearly 50sd
OF the load. Diversion results in q
lower tax rate for them-at the
expense Of the light consumer. Yet
taxes are fully deductable from in
come tax-so the net increase TO
large taxpayers amounts TO nearly
nothing. It simply means that more
money remains in Wyandotte and
less goes to the Collector Of Internal
Revenue. See - not by diverting -
and reducing rates you leave more
spendable income in the pockets Of
light consumers. To illustrate an
other point. If the amendment is
voted down. taxes may go up-unleSs
the city fathers economic somevay.
The maximum increase can only
be $3.50 per $1,000 Of assessed valua-
tion-in the case Of my residence
that would mean $3.50. A 800
reduction in light rates will save me
over 5000 as I spent over 500 for
electricity during 1874. After the
war when new appliances will be
available, low rates will really result
in tremendous savings to the aver
age householder and permit allow
him to comfort and convenience of
electricity. 1t is plain to see there
fore, that In Wyandotte In particu-
lar, legalizing diversion would be
the most foolish thing the voter
could do.
2. Another reason why the con-
sumner should not approve the
amendment Is this:
Our light plant has been built
up to its present condition entirely
out Of profits earned from consum-
ers besides it has $4,000 ear
marked for further expansion and
over $500 900 cash on hand for work.
ing capital Since 1923 the commits
sion in concert with the powers in
the city hall has diverted to the
general funds Of the city-in viola
ton of the city charter-over 81 $780,
900 for everything from the city
hall, nurses home, for welfare re-
lief, cancellation Of loans, fire sta
ton, street lighting. hydrant serv-
ice etc. All at the expense of
the light consumers. The city there
fore has been repaid its original
$4,000 investment many times over.
1t certainly has no just right or
claim to further contribution. The
plant should now give all its profits
back to consumers by reducing rates
AL consumers, residential CONNER
cial, industries, public and parochial
schools and other nen-profit insti-
tutions-and even the city general
fund-by reduced cost for street
lighting - viii benefit equally and
viii enjoy the full benefits Of NUM-
cipal ownership.
One more parting thought: What
II lawsuit were started and the
court held that all the illegally d.
verted funds must be paid back by
the city to the commission (si,5oo,-
00o) - what . dividend for con-