OCR Text |
Show Pulse Of The Public October 22, 1949 Editor, Standard: Politics is becoming the big issue in Roosevelt these days. As near as I can find out, we are going to have about three parties. par-ties. That puts up at least three good men for Mayor and many other applicants for the lesser jobs. With all these good men running, it is going to be hard to pick the right man or party to fill the job. However, the big issue before the voters, I think, is not who is going to be our next mayor, but why doesn't Roosevelt also have a paid City Manager. It is my contention that no one does anything' as well for nothing as they do when they get paid for it. This town is badly in need of a lot of improvements, and to get these improvements, I, personally, think that changing our form of local government and hiring a live-wire city manager man-ager is the best way for a town this size to get results. It has been proven beyond- a doubt that Vernal, working under a city manager, has been able to promote a lot of good projects for the town. These projects have usually been paid for by funds outside the city. To name a couple of projects, the;e are the museum, and the $35,000 state appropriation. Vernal got last year to put on city streets. Many people may think that this form of government would be more expensive than the system we now have, but I think it would actually be a lot less expensive. I understand that we now pay out $175 per month for two part-time jobs (city recorder re-corder and city treasurer). I believe these boys really earn their money, but I think a full-time full-time city manager could do those two jobs and be responsible respon-sible for the whole city government govern-ment for a little more than is now being spent. It would be my suggestion that an outsider be brought in who has had previous experience exper-ience in city management. This would eliminate any possibility of a hand-picked political plum. I believe a man could be obtained ob-tained for a fixed salary of around $300 a month. And a live-wire would certainly repay that in service to the community, commun-ity, many times over. Howard L. Harmstpn' Rppseyelt, Utah October 10, 1849 Editor, Standard: In my letter of comment and questions printed in the Sept. 29 edition of the Standard, one of the questions asked was why the valuation was doubled on desert sagebrush lands located in the vicinity of Red creek. No answer. I now have my tx notice, and the valuation remains re-mains the same on both notices. Mr. Collett explains that the value of irrigated land has doubled, dou-bled, while that of other land has dropped! This is not so in my case. For instance, my land in 1948 was valued at $195, and the tax was $8.46; for 1949 it is valued at $320, the tax, $12.41. The value during 1943-44 1943-44 was $1.60-$1 per acre. One might be led to believe that this great increase in valuation val-uation throughout the couny was made for the express purpose pur-pose of being able to borrow more money by bonding the county for more. If sp, what kind of a deal is it new dea, best deal, fair deal, pr ng deal? Will your county commissioners commission-ers answer this? I have received no answers to other questions. I could answer In their place, and perhaps the answers would coincide with their beliefs and opinions. D. S. Stanley 842 West First Weiser, Idaho P. S. I am not against bonding bond-ing for the schools right away. P.P.S. Someday I may relate some of the trials and episodes of homesteading in the Uintah Basin 40 years ago. (EDITOR'S NOTE: Mr. Collet Col-let says the reason your land tax is higher than formerly is that being spring and fall grazing graz-ing land, it is now listed in the second, not the third class. That is why your 40-acre strip of land, formerly valued at $40, is now $80, and another 120-acre 120-acre strip, formerly valued at $145, is now $240.) |