The First Veto: A Stand Against Seattle's Risky Debt
Mayor White halts an ordinance that would have saddled the city with private developers' debts under the guise of street improvement bonds.
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.
The first veto by the Mayor under the new city charter was given to the council last night. It returns 'an ordinance authorizing the redemption of warrants heretofore issued by the city of Seattle for work done and materials furnished in the opening, grading and general improvement of streets of said city under ordinances creating certain assessment districts, and the issuance of coupon bonds in lieu thereof.' This ordinance provides that the floating grade scrip of the city shall be called in at the holder's option, and be redeemed with bonds having interest coupons at 8 per cent, payable semi-annually. The bonds were to mature in five years from date. In his veto, Mayor White presents without argument the objectionable clauses of the ordinance, but bases his veto entirely upon the legal aspect of the case. He states what we imagine no lawyer will deny, that the city government has no power without the consent of the people to issue bonds, conditional or otherwise, payable out of the general fund of the city. Had he chosen to do so, he might have presented very strong reasons against the policy of this proposition. The ordinance practically saddled upon the city in its corporate capacity a debt which is due from many property-holders of the city to individuals. It provided that if the city failed to collect the delinquent grade tax to be covered by the proposed bond issue, it should at the end of five years pay the same out of its own general fund. This was an assumption on the part of the city of the whole delinquent grade fund, and a proposition not justified by any business prudence. Mayor White is clearly right in this veto. The ordinance is clearly beyond the authority of the city government; and, moreover, involves the city in an obligation which belongs not to the city itself, but to certain of its property-holders.
“The ordinance practically saddled upon the city in its corporate capacity a debt which is due from many property-holders of the city to individuals.”
This 1891 struggle over who bears the cost of infrastructure—private property owners or the public—echoes Seattle's ongoing debates regarding municipal finance, special assessment districts, and the shifting of financial risk for urban development onto the taxpayer.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.