Richmond Palladium (Daily), Volume 42, Number 295, 23 October 1917 — Page 8

PAGE EIGHT

THE RICHMOND PALLADIUM AND SUN-TELEGRAM, TUESDAY, OCT. 23, 1917. POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT PAID BY THE CITIZENS TICKET

f S

(E wmmmeimtt Him

Tothe Voters of Richmond: The man and woman citizenship of Richmond will be called upon, November 6th next, to express their choice of officials to care for the City's business during the next four years. That there will be differences of opinion as to which of the candidates is best qualified to meet the requirements of the office is to be expected. We often disagree because we do not understand each other; but when the points on which we disagree are clearly explained, and understood, we find we are not so far apart as we thought; more often striving for the same ends, but by the use of different methods. Ordinarily a candidate's qualification is based upon his belonging to the political party which, in National and State affairs, we favor. The point in this particular case, as I see it, is that the duties of a Mayor is to serve you as your business manager, and partisan politics has no place in city government. To manage the affairs of a city is a business proposition, involving the expenditure of over a quarter of a million dollars a year, and how to get the best results from the use of this money, calls for close application to the duties of the office, free from the cares of any other calling or profession. "No man can successfully serve two masters." A mere striving for place and power, and the salary there is in it, without a saving sense of the responsibilities attached to that place and power, is ignoble; what is needed is an unselfish devotion to the City's interest, and concurrently the interest of every taxpayer. One of the issues, therefore, of the present campaign is: Does the salary of Two Thousand Dollars a year justify you in expecting from the mayor his undivided time and attention to the care of your business? Has any man the right to expect a salary of that proportion, while he is devoting his time to the cares of his private business? I think not, and I further believe a majority of our citizens will agree with me. I shall endeavor in this heart to heart talk to put before you, in the form of questions and answers some of the principles involved in Richmond City Government : Question. What is the source of the City's income? Answer. Its principal source is taxes levied on real and personal taxable properties within the corporation.

Question. What is the value of taxable properties in Richmond? Answer. December 31st, 1916, the assessed valuation of all properties, subject to taxation, was $16,555,068.00.

Question. What is the tax rate of the City? Answer. $ 1 . 1 0 on the $ 1 00.00 of assessed valuation.

Question. What income does that tax rate produce? Answer. $ 1 82, 1 05.75 a year.

Question. How long has the tax rate been $1.10? Answer. Excepting for one year ( 1 9 1 0) it has been the same since 1907.

Question. Then the increase in taxes is not due to the Gty tax being increased? Answer. No! Question. It is charged that this administration has spent a great deal of money. Is it true? Answer, Yes, absolutely true.

Question. Will you explain the purposes for which this money was spent?

Answer. Certainly; you are entitled to know. We installed a new street lighting system over the entire city, adding seventy new lights, at an approximate cost of $1 5,000.00, so that it can no longer be said: "Richmond is living in a candle age." We have built 6J2 miles of permanent streets at an approximate cost to the city of $ 1 1 0,000.00. We have completed the motorization of the Fire Department at a cost, including the combination ambulance and patrol, of $20,000.00. We spent $4,000.00 to enlarge the capacity of the crematory to care for the garbage of the city. We have bought motors for the Engineering, Street and Police Departments. We bought a safety vault to protect the records of the city from destruction by fire. I . might add also that the Street Department has been supplied with equipment in the form of a scarifier, sweepers, oil distributors, street flusher, etc. ' Yes, we have spent money, but every dollar has been spent judiciously and for such things as were necessary to efficiently carry out the duties required of us.

Question. It is being stated that the previous administration; when they came out of office, left a surplus in the general fund of the City to the amount of $40,000.00 and the City practically out of debt ; it is further stated that there is now no money in the general fund and the city is hopelessly in debt. Is that statement true? Answer. No! There is not a word of truth in the statement.) There was in the general fund of the City, January 1st, 1914, when the present administration took charge, $29,144.14 and not $40,000.00 as stated. The same fund contained January 1st, 191 7, $28,759.35, or $386.79 less than January 1 stv 1914. The bonded indebtedness of the city, January 1 st, 1914, was $181,500.00. January 1st, 1918, will be $130,000.00, or $51,500.00 less than in 1914.

Question. How is the surplus in the general fund accumulated?

Answer. By living within the City's income.

Question. Can the surplus be safely accepted as evidence of economy? Answer No! Work may be neglected that should be done and money that should be paid out for that work goes to the general fund surplus at the end of the year. The size of the surplus has no bearing, and cannot be accepted as evidence of economy, unless all the work it is possible to do, is done. I would like to further show that the surplus is often the result of official trickery. To make clear how the trick has been worked, it is necessary to follow, step by step, the method pursued in securing an improvement, such as an improved street: First, a petition, signed by resident property owners only, is presented to the Board of Public Works, who make record of its filing and refers it to the engineering department for plans and specifications and estimates of the probable cost ; after which a date of hearing is advertised and remonstrances, if any, received. - Should there be a majority of resident property owners object to the improvement, the work can not be done without an. order from the Common Council.

If the work is ordered, bids are advertised for and the contract awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. When the contractor has completed the job an assessment roll is prepared,, pro-rating the cost according to the front foot of the various properties abutting the street made. A date is set and an opportunity given to any property owner affected by the improvement, who feels he has been unjustly charged, to protest against the assessment, and if found to be unjust, it is corrected to conform to correct measurement. The property owners are then given thirty days to meet the payment, and those who find themselves unable to pay within the time file a waiver, taking advantage of the "Barrett Law" which gives them ten years to make the payment in ten annual installments, with interest at 5. Here is where the official trickery came in. The contractor, of course, must be paid for his work, and to raise the money to cover the amounts waivered, bonds are issued and sold, but only for such amounts as waiver, and the money is paid to the contractor. I have before me the record of certain improvements made during the administration of Dr. W. W. Zimmerman, who again seeks the office. The total cost of the improvements was $38,351.00 and the amounts waivered was $1 7,806.70. being the amount for which bonds should have been issued ; instead of which there was issued bonds for the amount of $38,351.00, or $20,574.80 in excess of the waivers. That $20,574.80 was turned into the general fund and helped to swell the surplus which you were asked to accept as evidence of economy. If it stopped at that it would not be so bad, but remember, those bonds were drawing interest at the rate of 5 and in the ten years for which they were issued the taxpayers paid $ 1 0,287. 1 5 in interest. I say, better no surplus at all than to pay such a price to obtain it. I also have before me a copy of an audit made by the accountants of the Public Service Commission which says: "Receipts charged in revenue for street and park lights but not paid by city, 1910, $20,243.30; 191 1, $24,248.16; 191 2, $19,21 4.90; 1913 to June, $8,3 11.59. Total due the plant, $72,017.95." This means that the general fund of the city profited, by their failing to pay for street lights, $72,0 1 7.95. Yet, despite that fact, the surplus January 1st, 1914, only amounted to $29,144.14, and that surplus would have been a deficiency of $42,873.81 if the light plant had been paid its just dues. Let me say again, No ! You cannot accept a surplus as evidence of economy unless assured that such a surplus has been honestly accumulated. These official tricks are expensive, as I have shown above the taxpayers paid $1 0,287.1 5 in interest charges as a result of adding $20,574.30 to the surplus that should not and could not legally be added; but the further failure of the previous administration to pay for its street lights made it necessary to borrow $80,000.00 for one and one-half years at 4j2 interest to complete the purchase of the plant of the Light, Heat & Power Company. 1 The interest on that loan of itself was $5,400.00, which, when added to the $10,287.15 makes a total penalty of $15,687.15 which the taxpayers have to pay as a result of such official trickery. If the city light plant had been paid its just due "spot cash" could have been paid for the plant of the Light, Heat & Power Company.

MAW