quire a property which will in time produce a revenue to the state when carefully fostered for that purpose. There is no attempt here to inject a controversy relative to the theory of stateowned industries that is beside the urgent question of equitable taxation of forest cover or immature timber as involved in the matter now under advisement by the people in California in the proposed constitutional amendment. Idaho justly points with pride to its for est laws recently enacted; yet the laws are vitally defective in dealing with the question of taxation on immature timber. This state adequately cares for its present timber by fire protection statutes and laws designed to meet the needs of mature stands. However, the law will ultimately be fruitless unless some enactment be made which will effectuate the possible future supply of privately owned merchantable timber by insuring a protection to the investment which must care for and protect a business for at least sixty years before a financial return is possible, as in the case of timber. There is no other business which exists under like conditions-an initial investment, accruing taxes and protection costs, and a delay in returns for a generationyet that is exactly what the lumberman is asked to do under present laws. When considering the advisability of fostering an investment for the production of timber upon potential timberlands, it is necessary that we look to the future. By permitting or encouraging an owner to make an investment, subject to destruction by natural and human agencies, under an exemption from taxation for a period of years, it is not suggested that no tax be made when the crop is ready for harvest: until the harvest is ripe-deferring public but merely, that a delay in taxation be had exactions on account of the property while it is not only unremunerative, but in fact a constant cause of expenditure for protection against destructive agencies. No timberland owner will object to a just tax when a definite value is ascertainable, nor will he object to a tax on the land itself. if based upon a value comparative with the value for which the land is used. The question is, will the state, in order to produce and foster a taxable wealth for future years, forego an unreasonable request at the present time? proposed constitutional amendment. There This question prompts the study of the does not appear to be anything objectionable in the proposition. It has for its purpose the conservation of forests of immature age, as well as the inducement to private owners to put their timberlands to proper use. It does not prohibit the legislature from providing methods of assesstimber of more than forty years ment upon of age, in fact, the inference is that a tax shall be made. Further, the proposed amendment does not prohibit a tax upon the land itself for the purpose for which it is best adapted. In fact, the amendment appears to be a constructive measure designed to perpetuate an industry for California. Survey Showed That Pasadena Might The Research Department of California Taxpayers' Association at the request of the Pasadena City Committee, Charles L. Wright, chairman, has made a survey, economic and engineering, of the proposed improvement of Holly street in Pasadena. The report on the survey, which was based largely on engineering studies by Harry V. Wenger, opened the way to a saving of more than $600,000, the improvement of the street to be fully adequate and efficient from the standpoint of true city planning, traffic flow and esthetic considerations. The matter came before the Pasadena Board of city directors Sept. 28, 1926. when representatives of the State Association appeared in company with a sub-committee of the Pasadena City Committee and made a statement. In substance it advanced the suggestion, which had been set forth in the official report of the Research Department. It was that, instead of wid ening Holly street to 105 feet, an alternative plan be adopted of widening it to 89 feet, that the procedure be under the Mattoon Act instead of under the 1915 Act, all of which provided an efficient improvement, adequate to all the needs, with a saving of approximately 40 per cent of the estimated cost by the original proposal. The statement in part was as follows: Pasadena justly prides itself as an acknowledged queen among residential cities. Pasadena may maintain such a reputation and continue to attract and hold desirable citizenship only by predicating its official action on the principle of equal justice to all, rich and poor. An improvement of Holly Street has been proposed, and plans formulated for widening it to 105 feet. This improvement is proposed under the 1915 Act, which would assess the costs on all property in the improvement district-real estate, improvements and personal-regardless of the degree of benefit which would accrue to any particular piece of property. A lot which is situate so far away as to receive virtually no benefit from the improvement, would, under the original proposal, be charged pro rata to its assessed value as much as one of equal assessed value situate so as to receive a maximum of benefit. Serious Phases of Taxation These matters of taxation have assumed serious phases. It is time they received equally serious consideration, based on merciless fact-finding, through research and a review of the direction in which taxation is trending. Here in Pasadena as elsewhere taxes in late years have steadily increased. It is an issue which is nationwide. While the Federal government has been reducing taxes about $2,000,000,000 a year, state and local governments, in the same period, have been increasing them $4,000,000,000 a year. This city in its fine residential character, in its determination to give to people the best of community advantages and necessities, faces many other expenditures to which it must commit itself in the near future. All of them must be kept in mind if we are to treat the city as a thing organic and avoid the error of seeing one single proposal only as a thing apart from the organic whole. We cite to the taxpayers of the district affected by this Holly Street proposal that this improvement is not the only new one to which they must contribute in the near future. These same taxpayers must share in the costs for the issuance of bonds for several millions of dollars for vitally needed, water supply extensions. This is the one great, insistent and absolutely essential commitment, which must be kept in mind ahead of all others. Then there will be additional proposals for schools which will cost millions of dollars; there will be other street improvements, totaling large sums; there will be parks and playgrounds. There will be this city's share in the cost of County government and for flood control, which has already caused the authorization, and partial expenditure, of $39,800,000 of bonds, with a new proposal to issue more than $26,000,000 of additional flood control bonds, the total being more than $65,000,000, with other such bond proposals for flood control to come on in the near future. This city must bear its share of the proposed additional state tax for road construction and The whole issue boils down to this: Shall more than $600,000 be saved the taxpayers of the district involved without loss of efficiency in attaining the desired result? Shall there be just and fair imposition of the costs in exact proportion to benefits to be derived? Shall an 80-foot street be regarded as adequate for all traffic needs of Holly Street, as the evidence in this case proves; or, Shall a few taxpayers in the district involved contribute more than $600,000, largely to enable them and others to stand on the steps of the City Hall and look down a vista 105 feet wide, instead of 80 feet wide? Shall rational improvements be encouraged by economy and commonsense; or shall the taxpayers be discouraged to the point that they rebel and blindly vote "No" on all proposals, wise and unwise alike? We are heartily in sympathy with city planning. True city planning at first suffered because the economic factor was not always brought into the equation. At first it was "the city beautiful," and economic considerations were largely ignored. Gradually, however, city planning has developed into a science and an art. The pressure of economic necessity compelled such a result. Pasadena is face to face with such a consideration in this instance, as it will be in many others yet to In a sense, we are at the parting of the ways. Intense feeling on the subject of taxation has been aroused everywhere. We can not ignore it. This does not mean that we stand in the pathway to stop the car of progress. Rather, come. true progress is to be had along the lines indicated, and this true progress will be attained only if we take into consideration the facts and principles which herein are laid before you. The Facts Condensed The original Holly street improvement proposal was the voting of bonds for $1,150,000 for a street 105 feet wide, paving costs thereon to be approximately $287,000, the total being $1,437,000. The alternative proposal is for an 80-foot street, which adequately meets the needs, which would cost $600,000 for opening and widening, $212,000 for paving, a total of $812,000, the difference in saving to the taxpayers being $625,000. These findings were arrived at by the Research Department of California Taxpayers' Association at the request of the Pasadena City Committee of that Association. The Director of the department is Prof. Rolland A Vandegrift, an experienced research man, and the engineering survey was made by Harry V. Wenger, an engineer who has lived nine years in California, who has had wide experience in this class of work and who of course is absolutely disinterested. These findings may be trusted as adequate, sound and in line with the best practice in carrying on public improvements, and they realize, per haps, the maximum of economy, at the same time safeguarding efficiency. In other words, the resultant indicated by these findings is completely adequate to the needs in hand and would reduce the tax burden materially as indicated. The Mattoon Act was not on the statute books when these Holly Street improvement bonds were decided on. The Mattoon Act, however, is now effective, and while the Act has some defects, in this instance it is ideally suited and enables the allocation of charges for improvements in exact proportion to benefit to be derived. The execution of the project under the 1915 Act would tend to drive away from that district all persons and businesses owning much personal property, whereas under the Mattoon Act such a result would not be produced. A Course of Procedure Suggested The Board of Directors of the City of Pasadena is therefore asked to put the Holly Street widening under the Mattoon Act, and to make a scientific study thereunder of the necessary costs and best procedure. An 82-cent levy was made to care for the costs in this enterprise. This is the last day on which action may be taken to nullify such levy looking toward the substitution of the Mattoon Act for the 1915 Act as a basis of procedure. Your Honorable Board is therefore requested to modify the ordinance which has been passed and eliminate the 82-cent levy provided therein for this enterprise, pending further action as to placing the improvement under the Mattoon Act. The Pasadena Board of Directors expressed willingness to place the improve. ment under the Mattoon Act, and suggested that the matter be carried on as at present planned, and before Jan., 1927, the new plan be worked out by agreement among the taxpayers interested. That was agreed to, and the problem is now being studied with that end in view. MR. COULSTON ENDORSES SURVEY J. B. Coulston, president of the Pasadena Chamber of Commerce, and of the Maryland Hotel Company, thus wrote endorsing the survey of the Holly street proposal: Maryland Hotel Company Mr. C. L. Wright, Dear Mr. Wright: September 9, 1926. I have read with much interest the California Taxpayers' Association report on the Holly Street improvement. This is a splendid piece of work and if all of the plans for spending large sums of money in street work or other municipal improvements could receive as much attention and study as this has, a great deal of money could be saved to the taxpayers. Yours very truly, (Signed) J. B. COULSTON. Why Need Flood Control Procedure On Sept. 27, 1926, the California Taxpayers' Association, at the request of the Los Angeles City Committee, presented to the Board of County Supervisors, in their capacity as trustees of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, an import ant letter, which it is quite generally ad mitted exposes the fundamental error in the present and past procedure in reference to all or most of the flood control projects. A verbal statement was also made, amplifying the letter. It was set forth that precipitate action is taken, on such short notice that interested persons-the taxpayers who pay the bills have no time to examine the proposals and make constructive suggestions to the supervisors, leading to possible har mony. It was pointed out that, on the contrary. action as now determined leads inevitably to controversy. A constructive suggestion was made that the supervisors, when bond issues are under consideration, should give the public definite and specific notice and information sufficiently far in advance to enable this constructive course of action to be set in motion. At the same time, the supervisors were notified that California Taxpayers' Association, at the request of the Los Angeles City Committee, would make a survey of the flood control district from the beginning of its existence. The courteous cooperation of the supervisors and the employees of the flood control district was requested. The supervisors did grant very courteously access to all records, it being understood that, in procuring them, the researchers would go through the proper channel of authority. Action in this case was prompted by the announcement late in the afternoon of Sept. 24 that the supervisors would be asked by the Chief Engineer of the Flood Control District to place on the November 2 ballot a proposal for the issuance of $21,193,798 of additional bonds for 21 projects of flood control, and that the matter would be considered by the Board on Monday, Sept. 27, 1926. The letter, signed by Dr. Milbank Johnson, chairman of the Board of Directors, California Taxpayers' Association, follows: The Honorable, September 27, 1926. The Board of County Supervisors As Trustees of the Los Angeles County ATTENTION: R. F. McClellan, Chairman. Gentlemen: The taxpayers of the Los Angeles Flood Control District were informed late on Friday, September 24, 1926, of the proposal by the Chief Engineer of the District that $21,193,798 of additional bonds be issued for flood control and water conservation. The announcement was made that the Board would consider the matter on Monday (today), September 27, 1926. Obviously with one short business day, Saturday, intervening, it was impossible for taxpayers to advise themselves on the subject. Our Los Angeles City Committee, J. A. Winans, chairman, Edwin Baker, Secretary, had already requested California Taxpayers' Association to instruct its Research Department to make a survey of the Los Angeles Flood Control District from the beginning of its existence. This later announcement emphasizes the need for such a survey, which will be made under the direction of Professor Rolland A Vandegrift, Director of Research. We have access to the public records; but we would appreciate your courteous co-operation in facilitating a survey by the issuance of instructions from your Board to all employes of the Flood Control District to expedite the finding of the records. This work will begin in the immediate future and will be hastened with due regard for accuracy and thoroughness, and with the hope that constructive suggestions may be made which will contribute to the efficiency and economy of government in Los Angeles County, and, in no small degree, in California as a whole. We feel that the proposed bond issue is of sufficient magnitude to justify our request that action thereon by your Board be deferred long enough to enable an examination of the proposal, in the interest of those who must pay the bills, namely, the taxpayers. Precipitate procedure in the past in these premises has given rise to serious controversy. It is our belief that the suggestion herein made that the taxpayers have time to examine the pro posal might lead to such a constructive course as would avoid controversy over these proposed additional bonds. An early reply to this letter would be much appreciated. Yours very respectfully, MILBANK JOHNSON, Chairman, BOND PROPOSALS INCREASED The supervisors, however, went ahead with preparations for placing on the November ballot proposals for the additional bonds, announcing, however, that, instead of the sum previously indicated, the total would be $26,887,278, there having been added at the request of the City of Los Angeles, three projects for storm drainsa Sacatela storm drain, $3,285,278; the Slawson avenue storm drain, $2,289,000; the Jefferson street storm drain, $118,630. The 21 projects were: Western San Fernando Valley, $481,735; Wilson Canyon, $233,979; May Canyon and Pacoima division project, $315,944; Big Tujunga dam, $7,693,500; Haines Canyon project, $334,000; Stough Canyon and Burbank wash, $280,000; La Canada, Verdugo wash and Sycamore Canyon, $2,436,000; Sierra Madre Canyon, $202,200; Sawpit wash, $122,700; Duarte project, $102,580; Fish Canyon project, $18,000; Devil's Gate Dam, $75,000; Santa Monica storm drain, $355,000; Ballona creek, $293,250; West Compton creek, $3,718,330; Los Angeles River, $2,689,830; Lower San Gabriel River, $350,000; Lower Sycamore Canyon storm drain, $227,950; San Antonio Canyon dam, $500,000; Sawpit and Monrovia Canyon, $163,800; Lower Eaton Canyon dam, $600,000. A verbal statement made on behalf of the Association to the Supervisors said in part: We respectfully call to the attention of this Honorable Body that this character of procedure inevitably leads to controversy. This is a large engineering project. The public was informed for the first time definitely on Friday, with a short business day, Saturday, intervening, of the matter to come before the Board on Monday, which is today. There was absolutely no opportunity for taxpayers to examine the proposals, and they are placed in this embarrassing position-they must either take it as it is, or oppose the bond issue. No one outside an insane asylum of Southern California opposes flood control or water conservation, but there is a large and growing body of influential, responsible and patriotic citizens who are seriously and sternly opposed to the methods of official procedure which make possible waste of tax money. Why can there not be a constructive method of procedure, one in which the public is taken into confidence, with, say, thirty days' notice, during which time there could be an examination and constructive suggestions made by the repre sentatives of those who pay the bills-the taxpayers? Why need we go on from project to project, inciting controversy, insuring controversy, bringing bitterness, partisanship and acrid debate, when there should be harmony of action, and the bringing to bear of the very best of economic and engineering experience and wisdom which might be found in the community? We maintain that were a project of this magnitude to be submitted to a well-conducted and successful private corporation on Friday afternoon, with the information that final action must be taken on Monday or Tuesday, the employes and officials who submitted such a precipitate proposal would probably lose their jobs. It might be said that the taxpayers individually might come from time to time to the flood control district's offices and ask for and obtain information relating to the various projects. That upon its face is an impracticable procedure. There are half a million voters in the district. They hear piece by piece from time to time fragmentary statements that perhaps bonds will be asked for such and such a project, but the first definite, specific statement relating thereto is made on Friday to be finally considered on Monday or Tuesday. It is not good business. It is not just to the taxpayers, and, as we have said, it constantly invites controversy with all the costs of time and money and morale which such a warfare entails. To Give Youth Better Educational A study of educational costs in California in the interests of the youth is being made by the Educational Commission of California Taxpayers' Association. The object is to learn how the youth of the State may be given larger values in educative processes for every dollar expended, and where and how, if possible, costs may be reduced without lessening efficiency. The study has progressed far THE COMMISSION enough to assure that helpful suggestion will be forthcoming, although the Commis sion is not yet ready to make public its specific data. This study was prompted primarily by a belief that taxes were being in a measure collected and expended without full results to the youth. In other words, that there is more or less of waste, which of course does not benefit those who are under instruction. The Commission is composed of seven, Charles L. Wright of Pasadena, president; Dr. Frank C. Touton, University of Southern California, vice chairman; Dr. William Bennett Munro of Pasadena, Dr. George S. Burgess of Pomona College, Earle Houghton, Strathmore, president of the California Farm Bureau Federation, Miss Louise Clark of Santa Rosa, and Charles K. McIntosh of San Francisco. N. Bradford Trenham has been selected as secretary of the Commission. Mr. Trenham was elected to represent the State of Arizona for three years at Oxford University, England, under the terms of the will of Cicil Rhodes, South African empire builder, and studied there from 1921 to 1924. In addition, Mr. Trenham studied and travelled in ten European countries during vacations. In 1923 he was the publisher of "The Cherwell" at Oxford, and in 1924 received the degree of Bachelor of Arts, with honors in philosophy, politics and economics. The following year, 1925, he was research fellow in sociology at the University of Southern California, and assistant to the dean of the School of Education. He has been statistical assistant to the educational secretary, Dr. F. C. Touton, was on the faculty of the University, from which he received the degree of Master of Arts. He is active in educational fraternity work. Mr. Trenham is in active charge of the work under the direction of the members of the Commission. THE PERSONNEL Charles L. Wright, president of the Security National Bank of Pasadena. chairman of the Pasadena Committee of the California Taxpayers' Association. Mr. Wright is also Dr. Frank C. Touton, Professor of Education, and Educational Secretary to the President of the University of Southern California, is vice-chairman of the Commission. Dr. Touton is well known as an author of educational texts, especially of a mathematical nature, and is one of the best known educators on the Pacific Coast. He is National Vice President of Phi Delta Kappa, educational honorary society. He has also a widespread experience as a school administrator and state official in both Missouri and Wisconsin. Dr. William Bennett Munro, Professor of History and Government at Harvard University, and perhaps the greatest authority on American local government, is a member of the Commission. Dr. Munro spends the second semester of each year in Southern California, and is as much interested in California problems as in those of Massachusetts. He has written "Principles and Methods of Administration," "Leading Cases on the Constitution," "Government of the United States," "Municipal Government and Administration," "Problems of Citizenship," and a dozen other well known texts on political subjects. |