Tacoma's Two-Million-Dollar Question: Buy the Water Works, or Fix the Sewers?

TACOMA, April 2. — [Special.] — Under the circumstances this extract from an editorial in today's Post-Intelligencer is entirely too charitable:

"This point may or may not have a bearing upon the decision of the people, but we feel sure that the Ledger would not knowingly wish to mislead the people and have them vote in favor of the purchase of the water plant under the erroneous impression that they would still have something left with which to build sewers."

So far as the Ledger is concerned, taxpayers are in ignorance of these facts, viz.: that the limit of indebtedness is $2,153,707; that the proposed indebtedness is $2,150,000; that the balance for sewers is $3,707; and that those furnishing funds and figures to urge the sale of the water plant realize the above as facts and do not tell the truth about them.

If Mr. Wright must have money to carry on Tacoma enterprises alleged to be in contemplation, taxpayers might do this, viz.: purchase his listed property for $1,730,000; abandon $400,000 water plant improvements and issue sewer bonds for $403,707.

For sewers over $500,000 is needed. In some localities sewers are a necessity. A. H. Smith, over a year ago, completed building a house costing upwards of $4,000 in one of these sewerless districts. Mr. Smith says: "I can't sell this house, because we have no sewers." He has $6,500 invested in this property.

The wife of Councilman John W. Berry says: "We came to the West End several years ago, but I did not think of settling along until now without sewers. Drainage and filth is running around on top of the ground. We can filter our water and get along with the present supply for a year or two longer, but we must have sewers."

Everybody in the sewerless districts knows all about it. Less than three months ago the Ledger foreboded an epidemic of typhoid fever if sewers were not constructed. Now its policy dictates that the purchase "will not increase the burden of the taxpayers — that it will, in fact, reduce the burden already borne by at least $35,000 per year... because the water service supplied by the city will pay all interest charges and cost of operating."

And Superintendent Hurley, of the light and water company, sums up the company's operations for 1892 thus: gross income, $248,059.08; gross expenses, $122,802.16; net earnings, $125,256.92 — which will pay interest on a bonded indebtedness of $2,150,000 at 4 per cent, $107,500, leaving a balance of $17,756.92.

But the proposition to purchase is based primarily on the assumption that water rates would be reduced and that the city would be relieved of paying as a corporation for its water and light. A taxpayer says: "If the city buys it will for the present have to pay, in part, twice for its water and light, and besides maintain the present high rates to private consumers."

This statement is based on the fact that the city is the light and water company's best customer. For instance: city paid for light and water, 1891, $71,975.76; interest on bonds as proposed, $107,500; total if purchase is made, $179,475.76; company's total net earnings, $125,256.92; city must still pay $54,218.84.

All these figures, except the deduction, are the light and water company's. Still, hundreds of good business men and taxpayers favor the purchase. As a business proposition, present and prospective, they deem it a good one.

A certain city ordinance provides: "The city shall fix the price to be paid for its water." By enforcing this ordinance the bulk of the $71,975.76 paid by the city could be saved to the taxpayers.