Editorial from March 1941 issue of The Nor’easter, a publication of the Northeast Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce.
NOTE FROM ADAM LEVINE
This editorial provides an overview of the problems encountered by Philadelphia in implementing its 1914 plan for sewage treatment, in particular the city’s inability to raise money through sewer rents.
Philadelphia’s sewage problem is acute. Several years ago a contract was made with the State of Pennsylvania to spend some three million dollars each year until sewage disposal system was entirely completed, eliminating all sewage from the Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers. Unfortunately the city, after partial completion of Northeast Philadelphia facilities, was unable to continue this program. Today the State threatens to step in and complete the work, and charge the bill to the municipality.
Northeast Philadelphia is vitally interested in the completion of the sewage system, as large numbers of substantial homes in this area have been without sewer facilities for a number of years, and the condition today, due to certain land conditions, is deplorable. Furthermore, the flooding by Frankford Creek has cost a number of industries in this district more than a quarter million dollars in the past dozen years, and while partially improved this hazard cannot be entirely eliminated except by a complete sewage system including the Creek area.
The financial condition of Philadelphia during the past few years not only prevented completion of the sewage system through lack of cash, but also prevented additional borrowing by the municipality for such projects. Recently the improvement of the water system was acted upon, a loan authorized and methods for the improvement are under consideration. Regarding the sewage problem, a sewer tax was proposed based on the water rent paid amounting to one and one-quarter times such rent. This would have been such a burden to large users of water that it was discarded, and a tax proposed based on real estate assessments, with the idea of lowering real estate assessments a certain percentage, so that the taxpayer would pay little more as a total, and a base for funds to finance the sewage improvement would be secured. Unfortunately the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania declared this unconstitutional. Apparently wherever sewer taxes are charged they are based on water rents paid or the amount of water used. There seems to be no other adequate method. Various plans have been proposed, one with a minimum charge of $10.00, plus three-quarters of the water rent, and possibly one with a minimum charge of $12.00 plus one-half the water rent or maybe one-quarter of the water rent above a certain amount. Even these place extra burden on large water users, and would in reality make them pay considerable additional funds without extra service, while others would pay little if any more under the same provisions.
While sewer improvements are desperately needed, the averaged size industrial concern must not be imposed upon. There are many difficulties to any equitable sewer tax. In the first place about one-half of the properties in Philadelphia are metered and pay for exactly the amount of water used; the other half pay certain fixed sums based on fixtures regardless of how little or how much water is used or wasted. If a maximum charge was placed on the tax and a proportionate reduction made in real estate taxes some companies would pay little more including the sewer tax. Other concerns like dye houses would pay a substantial sum for the sewer tax with a negligible amount of real estate tax reduction, for the simple reason that the average dye house may pay four or five thousand dollars water rent per year and four or five hundred dollars real estate taxes per year. In addition to dye houses, laundries, bottling establishments, leather concerns and certain other businesses are large users of water, even though they may be only average size concerns.
The sewage discharge from homes and many concerns that use comparatively little water must be thoroughly assimilated and digested by the sewage disposal plant; on the other hand the discharge from laundries and some other concerns using tremendous amounts of water is beneficial to the sewage system, and in no sense a cost other than piping. Due to these many angles an equitable sewer tax is a difficult matter.
Two years ago at the regular 1939 Session of the State Legislature, Joint Resolution No. 2 was passed which provides that cities may raise their debt limit 3% to pay for or complete sewage disposal systems. While raising debt limits of municipalities may be dangerous in many instances, in this case where it is for a specific purpose and must be done, it appears to be not only the best, but the only fair method that can be pursued. This Joint Resolution has been again placed before the 1941 Legislature as it must be acted upon by two consecutive Legislatures. If this is passed by the present Legislature it can be placed before the voters and the city will then have authority to definitely complete this work, meet State requirements, give ample facilities to home owners and industries, and place no particular group under any unreasonable expense. Inasmuch as the funds must be definitely used for the purpose designated, there is no chance of it being wasted or utilized for other purposes.
This phase of the matter should be given ample consideration and publicity, so that the voters of the city as well as the legislators may understand the need for this specific legislation at this time.