OCR Text |
Show SO THE PEOPLE MY KNOW MEMBERS of the Utah state senate should n ot be deceived into believing that the clamor for a change in the form of the city government of Salt Lake comes from the citizenship. On the contrary the people of this city by the direct vote of the electorate have indicated that they are satisfied with the present form of government. A proposal for a constitutional amendment to give home rule to Salt Lake was overwhelmingly defeated at the last election. Moreover it was defeated by Salt Lake City since the outside districts carried the proposal by more than 1600 votes. The city districts polled a majority of more than 4000 against the measure. This fact alone shows the temper of the people. If the people should at some future time desire a change, they, and not the legislature, should initiate it. Hence it is safe to conclude that the measure, which has passed the lower house of the legislature legisla-ture and which provides for a change in the city government, does not originate with the citizenship. citizen-ship. It is a political move of partisan workers to obtain powers fairly lost in the city elections of the last few years. These workers hope to regai n control of the city government by legislating the present officials out of office and creating a need for another election this fall to select a complete set of city officers. , The measure was pressed through the lower house on the representation that it is the pledge of the Republican party. As a matter of fact, this argument does not ring true. The Republican state convention did express a desire for certain changes in the commission form of government. The state platform necessarily included all cities having the commission form and did not and could not single out Salt Lake without revealing a partisan motive. The Salt Lake county Republican convention refused to incorporate the clause in its platform. Consequently, if the state platform is to be regarded as a pledge, it affects not only Salt Lake but all cities with the commission form of government. Furthermore, the Salt Lake county delegations cannot profess to be bound to something some-thing in the state platform which the county platform refused to adopt, so long as the legislation is aimed only at Salt Lake City. The proposed change in the city government has but one purpose and that is to prove an election for hungry office seeker and poor losers. It can carry no benefits to the people and when its full measurement is taktn it means a step backward instead of forward. It will increase the overhead expense of the city at least $30,000 a year, since it provides for two additional commissioners commis-sioners as well as salary increases for the appointive officers who are to be made elective under the terms of the bill. It is sectional in scope and bound to restrict the growth and progress of the city as a whole. It forces a return to the old partisan method of selecting city employes which means that we must also return to the old partisan grabs in the city affairs. The bill is full of defects which would make the change extremely difficult under the measure as passed by the lower house. It provides for an additional ward in Salt Lake without making any provision for changing the ward boundaries. Altogether it is a bunglesome job thhat shows too plainly the earmarks of the old ward politician and a form .of government we should forget. In considering this measure the Utah senate should take into account the vote of the people of Salt Lake ' on the constitutional amendment at the last election. The senators should also note that the state platform pledge applies to Ogden, Logan, Murray and Provo, the same as to Salt Lake. We believe the legislature should be above ward practices and to this end tbe senate should protect the people of Salt Lake from an assault launched by a group of disgruntled office seekers. |