The Price of Municipal Ownership in Kent
Citizens of Kent are left with a mounting debt and a white elephant after a failed attempt to run their own utilities.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
Kent, Oct. 28, 1893. To the Editor: About fifteen months ago Kent citizens voted to bond the town to the tune of $23,500, with the object of buying and controlling its own water and light plant. This was done by buying one old and one new water system and an old rattle-trap of an electric light plant at fabulous prices, the officials claiming at the time that the receipts therefrom would more than pay the interest on the bonds and create a sinking fund, said bonds to mature in twenty years, at 6 per cent interest, payable semi-annually. After one short year's trial our city fathers concluded to mend matters by leasing the entire systems of water and light to private parties for $40 a month. Now, how long will it take at this rate of income to wipe out the bonded debt without levying a special tax to pay for the same? Let Kent parties who voted for bonding answer this problem.
“After one short year's trial our city fathers concluded to mend matters by leasing the entire systems of water and light to private parties for $40 a month.”
Public ownership of utilities remains a contentious issue in the Pacific Northwest, mirroring this 1893 debate in Kent. Just as the writer then questioned the fiscal sustainability of local government infrastructure, residents today frequently clash over the cost-benefit analysis of municipal versus private service delivery.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.