The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, May 17, 1917, Page 4

&hforni Cily andOhle WO]“HO&& her| and dolve 5) Froblem L?;;SCFE&} ls Used fo Gel Noney Howi Worksfl v I Q Oakland, California, City Hall, main offices for the publicly owned system of wharves and warehouses. Publicly owned elevators and packing plants may be the next development of public ownership at Oakland. NE hundred and forty-five years ago, in 1772, Father Juan Crespi and Captain Pedro Fages climbed the Berkeley hills back of what is now called San Francisco bay and gazed down upon the glistening sheet of land-locked water whose entrance is the famous Golden Gate. They were members of the historic expedition of discovery and exploration of Don Gaspar de Portola and were the first white men to see this wonderful har- bor. This bit of history has nothing to do with what is to be told here, except that on the one hundred and forty- fifth anniversary of the visit of Father Juan and Captain Pedro, March 27, 1917, the writer happened to be doing a little exploring himself in San Francisco bay. A lot has happened at the Golden Gate in the 145 years since the two Spanish explorers first saw this spot. Not the least is the construction of one of the biggest state-owned and operat- ed enterprises to be found anywhere. The state of California long ago as- sumed that it held for all time supreme and sole authority and ownership over all the water front of its harbors, ex- cept as it should delegate it to munic- ipal corporations. No public officials or legislatures, so the people of the state decreed, could sell or give it away. It was to be the people’s for- ever, and so it is today, although it has taken many hard-fought. law- suits . to get back parts of it from greedy corporations and individuals that gobbled it up and attempted to monopolize terminal facilit'@s despite constitutional provisions. STATE RUNS ITS OWN BUSINESS The state of California has delegated its rights to water front and harbor Iand sites for terminal utilities to the municipalities at Oakland, Los Angeles and other ports, but at San Francisco it owns and operates itself, through a state board of harbor commissioners; . the extensive port facilities which in- clude a state-owned and operated rail- road skirting the bay and con- necting upe the publicly owned warehouses, wharves, ferry slips and other utilities. Figures are. generally rather dry and uninteresting, but no idea of the extent of this vast state-owned business at San Francisco can be gathered with- out a glance at a few of the fig- ures. The state of California derives an annual gross revenue of mnearly two million dollars from its public terminal utilities at this port: The revenue for the last fiscal year, to be exact, was $1,909,353.71 Since the earth- quake_and fire of 1906, which destroyed or severely damaged all the then existing wharves and warehouses and made build- ing anew necessary, the state legislature has authorized bond issues of over $20,000,000 for public terminal construction. Two big facts stand out in the current report of the state har- bor commissioners:* The publicly owned and oper- ated wharves, warehouses, rail- \ STATE OWNERSHIP IN CALIFORNIA The state of California owns and operates terminal. facilities and utilities at San Francisco valued at $250,000,000. The revenue from these vast publicly owned utilities amounts to about $2,000,000 a year. This revenue pays all the expenses of operation, all the in- terest on the -bonds issued to construct the utilities and retires all installments of the bonds annually as they come due. The legislature and people of California have cheerfully loaned the state’s eredit and machinery of government for con- structing these terminal facilities, which include a state-owned and operated railroad skirting the bay. Z The public ownership and operation of the terminals and harbor facilities have never cost the taxpayers of California a cent and never will, owing to the wise plan of financing by state- guaranteed bonds instead of by taxation, letting the utilities pay their own way. California could never have successfully financed this great state-owned business by taxation. The * $20,000,000 in bonds issued to build the utilities, had it been a tax, would have made state-ownership too costly and would have created opposition to the increased taxes that would ha whole plan. roads, etc., are capable of making a net revenue that would enable a private corporation to capitalize them at two hundred and fifty - million dollars, though they have cost the state only a fraction of that sum. PUBLIC UTILITIES ALL PAY THEIR OWN WAY The vast projects, completed and under -way, have never cost the tax- payers of California a cent and never will, though the legislature has loaned the machinery of government and the state’s credit for their construction. They are absolutely” self-sustaining. The revenue from tolls, rents, wharf- age, dockage and the state railroad pays all operating expenses, all in- terest on the bonds and retires the annual installments of the bonds as they come due. FOUR ve resulted in the failure of the The financial success has been most striking. The - legislature has not hesitated to authorize all the bonds needed since the 1906 disaster to re- build the port utilities on a2 much more comprehensive plan than before. It authorized $2,000,000 in bonds in. 1907, $9,000,000 in 1911 and lately $10,000,000 more, the people of all the state ap- proving the issues in some cases, where referendums were called for. The leg- islature and people have been this free in loaning the state’s credit to these enterprises because it was known . that they would not increase taxes or be a drain on the public treasury in afly way. The revenue from the pub- licly owned utilities the bonds have built has been and is taking care of all expenses, including interest and prin- cipal of the bonds. One of the wharf and warehouse units being erected on San Francisco Bay by the city of Oakland through bond issue. : TAX PLAN WOULD HAVE PREVENTED SUCCESS If California had attempted to buil@ these public terminals at San Fran- cisco by, taxation it probably would have failed or had only a partial suc- cess. If the $21,000,000 in bonds issued in the last ten years had been a direct tax on the people instead, it would have made the projects onerous, be- cause it would have increased taxes to an alarming extent and created an opposition among the people that would have made public ownership distaste- ful. Without a united people back of the projects they could not have had the success they have had. If the oppo- sition to public ownership, from sel- fish motives or ‘“on principle,” had succeeded in having a tax of $20,000,- 000 placed on the people to build the San Francisco port utilities they would have played a trump card. As it is there is no open opposition to the pub- lic owmership of the San Francisco port. The city is proud that its termi- nal utilities are state-owned and thus operated for service on equal terms to all as a state asset, instead of for profit by private interests. The state on its part is glad to lend its credit and the machinery of government to develop and make free to all the world its principal port. STATE KEEPS THE CORK OUT OF THE BOTTLE The conditions that existed at Seat- tle and other Pacific coast ports, where private interests bottled up the harbor and stood at the gate collecting un- reasonable toll from every pound of freight that came in or went out, and operated private warehouses and cold storage plants for the benefit of mid= dlemen instead of producers and con- sumers, never have existed at San Francisco. The state owns all the wharves and every foot of the water front. It owns the big ferry passenger terminal at the foot of Market street, —~through which millions of people pass monthly. It owns public ferry slips for ferries that carry freight and pas- senger trains across the bay, and great warehouses and wharves for the use of the public, on equal terms to all, in transferring freight from ships to cars and cars to ships. It leases to private corporations, like railroad com=- panies, wharves and ferry slips for limited periods at remunera- tive rentals, but there is no such thing as a railroad or group of railroads bottling up the water front and creating a monopoly, thus exacting unreasonable charges, as has been the case everywhere under private owner- ship and operation of terminal facilities at seaports. Even under public ownership at Seattle, which is doing so much in cheapening food prod- ucts to the consumers and mak- ing producing more profitable to the farmers, the railroads are still playing a holdyp game, bhe- cause Seattle has not- yet built a publicly owner railroad to con- nect up its various public ware- houses, cold storage plants, grain elevators and wharves. a oaves Ifs \Véffirilfonf By Oliver S. Norris » P = =— e —