Intergovernmental responsibilities for water supply and sewage disposal in metropolitan areas. Page: 50
135 p., [24] p. ; 26 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
In the absence of a profitable contract system and in
those areas where capital investment in central city systems
has lagged far behind requirements, attitudes toward metropolitan
proposals are likely to be quite different. Like many central
cities Seattle has chosen to confine its responsibilities to the
city limits and its opportunities to the area. When a profit can
be made on a regional function, as is the case with water supply
in the Seattle area, the central city favors the contract system.
When capital requirements are great, as with waste disposal, or
deficit operations are probable, as in the case with mass transportation,
Seattle has sought to spread responsibility to the
entire metropolitan area through creation of a regional instrumentality.
During the formative stages of the Municipality of
Metropolitan Seattle, there was considerable criticism of the
failure to designate water supply a metropolitan function.
Suburbanites called on Seattle to turn over both profitable
and unprofitable functions to the metropolitan instrumentality.
Although water supply was one of the original functions recommended
for the metropolitan government, it was omitted from the
proposal submitted to the voters because supporters of Metro
felt that votes gained outside of Seattle through the inclusion
of water supply would not compensate for those likely to be lost
within the city.
Suburban attitudes toward metropolitan approaches also
vary greatly with the situation in a particular community. Some
are content with their own facilities, which often provide a
better level of service at a lower unit cost than will be
possible under a regional system. Others prefer the continuation
of the contract system with procedural reforms. Communities
with serious problems sometimes favor regional approaches, but
more often are attracted by lower cost alternatives.
Despite the variety of attitudes produced by these
differences in situations, there is at least one constant.
Distrust of the central city and its motives with respect to
regional approaches is found in suburbia across the land.
For example, one suburban newspaper urged defeat of the
proposal for the creation of the Municipality of Metropolitan
Seattle because "if for no other reason than the selfishness
and the general untrustworthiness of Seattle, the Metro plan
should be defeated. Seattle just isn't the kind of town you
take for a business partner." 39/ At the same time, another
39/ Kirkland Sentinel, November 15, 1957.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. Intergovernmental responsibilities for water supply and sewage disposal in metropolitan areas., book, October 1962; Washington, D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1424/m1/62/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.