Newspapers / The Pilot (Southern Pines, … / Aug. 6, 1954, edition 1 / Page 2
Part of The Pilot (Southern Pines, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
PAGE TWO THE PILOT, Southern Pines, North Carolina FRIDAY. AUGUST 8. 1954 PLEASE! Southern Pines North Carolina “In taking over The Pilot no changes are contemplated. We will try to keep this a good paper. We will try to make a little money for all concerned. Where there seems to be an occa sion to use our inNuence for the public good we will try to do it. And we will treat everybody alike.”—James Boyd, May 23, 1941. , Highway Relocation Pressing Need The sympathy of this community went out last week to the husband and family of the young woman who was killed in a traffic ac cident at the corner of Indiana Avenue and May Street (No. 1 highway). The circumstances were particularly tragic and the death of this young woman who had been married Only about six months reminds us again of the peril that is imminent constantly on the public roads. While disregard of traffic regulations appears to have played an important part in the acci dent last week, such a collision points up need not only for personal caution and alertness on the part of drivers but for better highway en gineering. Running for many blocks through a closely built-up residential section of Southern Pines, No. 1 highway provides a traffic hazard that should be eliminated with all possible speed. Despite stop lights, blinker lights or stop signs at aU intersections, there are numerous colli sions along the highway—^most of them in volving minor injuries or property damage. Fortunately, to judge from a recent an nouncement by the State Highway Commission and the surveys that Sre being made here, ten tative plans, at least, are being made to take No. 1 highway off May Street. While it is not yet known or has not been revealed where No. 1 highway is to run in its new location, it is a foregone conclusion that wherever it is, it will be . engineered so that intersections with it will eliminate the great hazards that exist along May Street. There are other advantages, of course, in routing No. 1 to another location. Traffic noise and fumes will be eliminated on a long-estab lished residential street. The highway will be removed from the immediate vicinity of the schools. I Given the fact that human beings are as prone to error and carelessness as they are, re routing of No. 1 highway and elimination of direct cross intersections at whatever new lo cation is chosen for it will save lives in the future. The School Budget Controversy — I The board of county commissioners and the county board of education are, at this writing, . deadlocked in a controversy about school capi tal outlay funds—the money appropriated in a tentative 1954-’55 budget for building schools, cafeterias, auditoriums, gymnasiums and other buildings and for major ipiprovements in school plants. While the money requested for this purpose by the board of education and the trustees of the two charter school districts in the county— Southern Pines and Pinehurst—traditionally runs more than the commissioners feel they can allow, never 'before this year has neither side yielded or compromised. Following a joint session of the two boards last Friday in Carthage, after the county board of education had rejected the school budget al lowed by the commissioners, the controversy goes to Clerk of Court Carlton Kennedy for arbitration. Either side may appeal his decision to a Superior Court judge and the outcome may be appealed again to the Supreme Court. This process has been instituted in several North Carolina counties this year. The problem seems to be inherent in the re lationship of school boards, who spend money on needs as they see them, and boards of county commissioners who appropriate money and set tax rates and by whom school demands are balanced along with other requests made from all departments of county government and all types of county services. The controversy as it stands is between only the county board of educaticA. and the commis- tioners. The trustees of the Southern Pines and Pinehurst units have made no formal protest to the commissioners of the money allotted to them, but it is understood that Southern Pines school officials are not satisfied with an allot ment that will not enable them to complete and furnish the new “Phase B” unit of the high school for the school year beginning in 1955 nor to install dressing rooms and showers in the high school gym. Yet, points out the county board of educa tion, the Southern Pines unit is getting $115.78 per pupil in capital outlay funds, according to the tentative budget, as compared with $39.93 per pupil in the county school systemi. While construction of the high school here accounts for a large local allotment, the county board, qs it did last year, co^ntinues to allege an in equity of money distribution, citing the fact that since the county took over the responsi bility of building schools in 1936, the county system has received an average of $22.86 per pupil, in capital outlay funds, while the South ern Pines district has received $41.04 per pupil and the Pinehurst district $34.12 per pupil. This is all incidental to the current contro versy wMch is based on the county board of education’s contention that it is not getting enough money to meet minimum needs, re gardless of what is being given to the other units. At last week’s meeting, county school board members said that capital outlay needs in the county system were, earlier this year, figured at over $1,000,000. They said they revised and cut their schedule of needs four times, ending up with a minimum figure of $422,000, an amount they asked the commissioners for, prior to budget-making time. They were allotted $269,000 when the budget was made up. The commissioners set the tax rate at $1.35 per $100 of property valuation the same rate as last year. To give the county board of edu cation its $422,000 would require a tax rate of slightly over $1.77. The commissioners based their whole rejection of the school board’s plea on the fact they were determined not to raise taxes. One commissioner said he would be willing to take an oath that the county would collect more tax money at a $1.35 rate than it would at $1.77. The board of education says flatly it can’t meet minimum needs with the money it will have to work with in the coming year. The commissioners say they have given the county school system $2,150,000 in the past five years—more than the board of education said it needed for a 10-year improvement program when a county school bond issue was proposed four or five years ago. The bond issue proposal was at that time rejected in favor of a pay-as- you-go program. Even after a fairly detailed study of the fac tors in the controversy, we don’t feel that we can say who is right and who is wrong in the matter. The dilemma can only be solved by the peo ple of Moore County in whose behalf both the board of education and the board of commis- siners are, we believe, sincerely trying to act in good faith. The board of education thinks that the people are willing to pay more taxes to get bet ter school plants. The board of commissioners thinks people are neither willing nor able to shoulder an added tax burden. Both bodies, presumably, have sounded out public sentiment and both are attempting to discharge their duty to the people as they see it. A lesson for the two boards involved, the press and the public does emerge from this controversy with clarity: there must be a much more detailed and much more complete pre sentation of school construction programs and budget problems to the public—not after, but before, money is allocated. The Pilot recognizes the key role it and a!^ media of information should play in an infor mation process that would lay school needs and proposed plans before the public—so that first of all, the people would know what will be done with their money and can express their opinion on such proposals; and second, so that the board of education and the county commis- siners can benefit from a public reaction that is based On specific proposals—not simply on the vague propositions of whether or not to raise taxes or whether or not the county is to have better school plants. The board of education might gain public sympathy in their drive for an A-1 school sys tem if the schools’ needs and the proposed plans to meet the needs were laid before the public well in advance of budget-approving time. Earlier this year, the county board of educa tion did release for publication the outline of a school building program that ran to weU over $1,000,000, but the public was not informed what items went into the $422,000 program that the board later requested from the commis sioners as its minimum requirement for inclu sion in this year’s budget. A summary of the items in this program—which would have to be drastically cut under the $269,000 allor^ed by the commissioners in the new budget— appears elsehwere in today’s Pilot. Likewise the commissioners’ position might be more readily understood if reporters were called into a budget-making session and the public were informed of their problems rather than being turned away at the door with the plea, “We’re in executive session, working on the budget.” Without public participation and public knowledge of the full facts, the controversy loses much of its significance. Both the board of commissioners and the board of education are elected by the people to carry out the duties assigned to them and certainly the people can’t vote on every issue that comes before the boards. Yet we see no answer to the dilemma in which county and city school boards find themselves almost every year, as regards school needs and the inability or unwillingness of the county to meet their requests, unless the people—on whose behalf aU the business of both boards is supposedly carried on—know more about what is going on at Carthage and then show more interest and express more definite opinions on how and how much money is to be spent for schools. A LOT OF US MAY NOT SET ANY MORE HELP BECAUSE THERE'S M0| MORE MONEY LEFT IN , THE MARCH OF DIMES ! YEAH -THAT',S BECAUSE THOUSANDS OF US GOT VACCINE AND GAMMA GLOBUUN SHOTS, THIS YEAR The Public Speaking 6IVE TOTHE/aftERgStoy MARCH OF HMES City Manager Reports On; Town Cemetery Policies An analysis of income and ex penses in operation of Mount Hope Cemetery, which is owned by the town, has been made by City Manager Tom E. Cunning ham, with the recommendation that allocations to the perpetual care fund be discontinued and that the price of lots be increased. The manager’s recommenda tions constitute a compromise be tween putting it on a completely self-sustaining basis—which, he reported, would increase the cost of lots 600 per cent—and the pres ent system by which a large por tion of the cemetery’s cost is paid from general property taxes. Following is the manager’s re port, with some of the statistics omitted or briefly summarized: FINDINGS 1. At Coimcil’s request, I have made an analysis of the income and expenses of the operation of the Town’s Mount Hope Ceme tery, with a view toward putting it on a self-sustaining basis. I believe the Council requested this ananlysis primarily for the one significant reason that a very large percentage of our taxpayers never use our cemetery facilities. It is my belief that it is much more desirable from everyone’s standpoint to pay the complete cost of one’s use of the cemetery when it is used, rather than to pay for it in the property tax forever. In addition, no tax supported fa cilities are provided for colored taxpayers and many white tax payers desire to be buried at places other than Southern Pines. (Over the past five years, fig ures in the report show, cemetery income amounted to $9,520 ^lnd expenditures to $17,255. The amount of the expenditures car ried by the property tax, there fore, was $7,735.) It can be seen from the above table that the average cost to the taxpayers lor the operation of the cemetery amounts to $1,547 a yeetr at the present time. Based on the present price of the cemetery lots, the following would be the tothl income from their sale: Sections D and E at $25 (425 lots), $10,575; Section F at $300 and $250 (111 lots), $30,450; Sec tion A at $150 smd $200 (29 lots), $4,900; Section C at $100 (16 lots), $1,600; Total income from sale of lots, $47,525. The average annual income from grave opening fees is $200 a year. If the next 100 year period can be assumed to be the life of the presently developed portion of the cemetery, the following would be the total income and expendi tures during this period: Total income (all sources), $67,- 525; less amount for perpetual care, (present rate 25%), $11,881, $55,644; Total expenditures at $2500 a year, $250,000; Total amount to be carried by the prop erty tax, $194,356. An analysis of the above will show that during the next 100 years, based on the present sale price of the cemetery lots and the present assignment to the perpe tual care fund, the average annual cost to the taxpayers will be approximately $2,000 for the operation of the Town Moxmt Hope cemetery. Theoretically, in order to put a cemetery on a self-sustaining ba sis, it is necessary to set aside some of the income for "perpetual care” in order that the “perpetual care fund” will produce enough income to maintain the cemetery after aU lots are sold. However, many municipal officials today point out that few if any perpe tual care funds have ever been successfully administered, since increasing costs, spending of funds by government officials, and na tional monetary shifts affect the funds materially. Since municipalities are in the cemetery business and must care for the cemetery perpetually in one way or another, it is suggest ed by many that the allocating of large sums of money to perpetual care funds be discontinued and the city should receive its year- to-year return on its cemetery op eration with the assurance that taxpayers bear as little of . the burden as possible. This is rec ommended by the N. C. League of Mimicipalities. Based on present day costs, a 3% return on a fund investment, and allocating 25% lot sales to the fund, the following income would be necessary to operate the ceme tery on a self-sustaining basis. It is assumed that while the ceme tery is active, an annual expendi ture of $2,500 is necessary and when the cemetery is inactive an annual expenditure of $1,000 is necessary. Perpetual care fund, $33,000; annual income at 3% $1,000; an nual expenses after cemetery be comes inactive, $1,000. Total income from sale of lots necessary lor: 1. Perpetual care fund $33,000; 2. Annual operating expenses, first 100 years, $250,000; total $283,000. In order to put the cemetery on a completely self-sustaining basis including 25% perpetual care fund designed to produce $1000 a year alter cemetery becomes inactive, the price of the cemetery lots would have to be increased ap proximately 600%. (Income at the present rate would bring in $47,525, Mr. Cun ningham’s figures show, while in come necessary for the cemetery to become completely self-sustain ing would be $285,150.) If it were decided to discon tinue the contributions to the per petual care fund and plan to earn enough profit, after the cemetery becomes inactive, from other cem eteries and newly priced lots to maintain the inactive cemetery satisfactorily, the price of the cemetery lots would have to be increased approximately 500% as follows: (Income necessary without the perpetual care fund would be $237,625, the report shows.) A compromise move in the di rection of a self-sustaining ceme tery might be to increase the price of the single grave lots to $75, increase other sections com parably, and to discontinue allo cating funds to the perpetual care fund. This would mean that the taxpayers would still carry a portion of the cost of operating the cemetery. The comparative price of the lots would be as fol lows: (This would make present and proposed prices of the lots, re spectively: Section'D & E, $25 to be $75; Section F, $300 and $250, to be $350; Section A, $150 and $200, to be $300; Section G, $100 to be $200.) The analysis of income and ex penses on the above prices would be as follows: About Golfcrest Contract To The Editor: This letter is addressed to the citizens of Southern Pines. There Was no definite contract existing between the Town and Mr. Newland Phillips. Our town council recently honored an oral agreement made about September 12, 1951, by paying Mr. Phillips $2,433.59 for 1,000 feet of six-inch pipe outside the city limits in Golfcrest. Our usually talkative mayor was strangely silent in his stand on this agreement and wholly lacking in leadership to protect the interests of the citizens of Southern Pines. This $2,433.59 paid to Mr. Phillips represents the taxes from an average taxpayer in Southern Pines for the next 40 years, or the taxes of 40 taxpayers for one year. Even though the money is paid from a surplus in the water account, it is the tax payers’ money and should be ap plied to improving the town. Councilman Blue said he felt morally bound to honor this ver bal agreement with Mr. Phillips, though it was wrong in the first place for him to make the agree ment. If the water fund shows a surplus at the end of June, we believe that the moral obligation lies with the council to furnish water mains and fire hydrants within the town limits to the citi zens without these facilities and not to a private promoter outside the city limits. Councilman Patch, notably ab sent from the last two important council meetings, stated that “this verbal agreement made by the previous administration was hazy” and also admitted that “it was handled very loosely.” He said that he was for this agree ment wh^en it was first made and that he was for il now. ■We believe that meeting our water arid hydrant obligations m within the town limits will be more constructive than passing out money to a private promoter whose expense for these facilities presumably has been included in the price of his lots. Our understanding is that the general policy for a private pro moter is to absorb the cost of water and sewer lines, streets and gutters in the price of the lots. Our city manager presented a (1^ long list of towns and cities in North Carolina which follow this policy. He stated that this policy is recommended by the League of Municipalities. Councilman fcrilmore pointed out that the practice of absorbing development costs is borne by the promoters throughout the country. He spoke of a promoter whom he knew who followed this standard policy from a small de- W velopment of 12 houses to large developments of 1,000 homes, turning aU facilities over to the town without reimbursement up on annexation. In view of these facts, our town council makes an exception to an established policy, ignoring com pletely the sound advice of well- informed officials, and at the cost of $2,433.59 to be spent outside ^ the city limits, with no assurance " of annexation or the return of this needless expenditure. Citizens, think this over. Is it fair, just and ethical and in ac cordance with our councihnen’s .oath of office? TAXPAYERS. 0^ Sand Tropical Paradise? John B. Cornwell, son of Mrs. S. D. Fob'es of Southern Pines, writes from Hawaii, where he is beginning a two-year assignment in the Navy, that the people there are unfriendly and that he “would give his left kneecap and the nails out of the heels of my old shoes to get back to the States and never again see a rainbow, or smell a flower or see blue surf or a pine apple etcetera.” His opinion, which would break a recruiter’s heart, is that Hawaii is known as a tropical paradise only to those who haven’t been there. Maybe John will feel happier when he can sleep at night and get around in the daytime. He says he’s now working from mid night to 8 a.m. and sleeps 'all day. He’s with Air Transport Squadron 21, attached to flight planning. His address is: John Bancroft Cornwell, ATAN, Box 7, 'VR 21, Navy 14, FPO, Fan Francisco, Cal. Editor Quits Smoking Editor A1 Resch of The Chat ham News at Siler City, who is widely known in newspaper cir cles and also in this area through his work with the Boy Scouts in Occoneechee Council activities, has quit smoking, after puffing two and a half packs per day for 30 years. In his personal columii on the editorial page of his paper, he has been treating readers for the past Total expenses first 100 years, $250,000; less: income from fees ($20,000) and, income from lots ($82,475), $102,475; l^tal cost to taxpayer, $147,525. With the above prices, the av erage annual cost to the taxpay ers would be approximately $1,450 a year or slightly more than the amount that would be necessary to maintain the cemetery after it becomes inactive. CONCLUSIONS: To put the town cemetery on a completely self-sustaining basis would require an increase in the price of aU lots by approximately 600%, making single grave lots about $137 and five-grave lots about $1650. Without a perpetual care fund these prices would have to be $125 and $1500. Cemetery lot prices for single grave lots at $75 and multiples in creased accordingly, and discon tinuance ' of contributions to the perpetual care fund would result in present day and future taxpay ers carrying about $1,000 to $1,450 of the cemetery maintenance each year. RECOMMENDATIONS: Although the matter of subsidi zation of the cemetery , is clearly a matter of public policy, it is be lieved that the operation of the cemetery on a self-sustaining ba sis is desirable. However, the price of the lots necessary for this appears high. It is recommended that we dis continue allocations to the per petual care fund. It is recommended that the price of the cemetery lots be set at the prices indicated below: Section D and E, $75; F, $350; A, $300; C, $200. An ordinance setting these rates will be considered by the council at its regular meeting August 10. three weeks to a blow-by-blow account of his plans to quit, his failures, his final triumph and his accompanying sufferings. With most of the smokers around The Pilot also trying to quit, quitting, starting again, cut ting down and going through all ^ the rigmarole that most every W smoker has experienced at some time in his addiction to the weed, Mr. Resch’s articles are furnishing no little inspiration. They are authentic and, mercifully, he does not claim that quitting is easy. It reminds us of a favorite line from a source we can’t now recaU at the moment: “I am the man. I suffered. I was there.” The series began with the editor^ confessing the grip and power o^ his addiction. “Smoking was as much a part of me as putting on my pants,” he wrote. “It was second nature for me to reach for the night table and a cigarette the minute I open ed my eyes in the morning . . . There were many times when the smoking habit provided embsir- rassment, as, for instance, the time that I came within a split^ second of lighting up a cigaretteir at a Sunday morning church ser vice ...” Mr. Resch set a quitting or “Q” day a couple of weeks in advance, cutting down on smokes during that time. But when the day ar rived, “I could no more quit smoking than I could fly to the moon. The day was a busy one. And I kept lighting cigarettes and telling myself that tomorrow waA another day. In ' the innermost reaches of my mind, however, some sort of signal kept telling ^ me what a weakling I was. And I kept telling that signal to blow up like a Fouth of July Firecrack er and go away.” But before the day ended, Mr. Resch had won. He lighted a cig arette as he went to bed at 9:30 p.m.—and that was the last. The editor’s final word: “Thlp' free advice that I give to anyone seeking a formula for qxiitting in cludes the admission that it is the toughest battle that a person faces if he has been a chronic smoker over a long period. “And I give a two-word formu la that to me is worth all that I have evfer read about the tech niques of quitting—^Be Stubborn.” The PILOT ^ Published Every Friday by THE PILOT, Incorporated Southern Pines. Noilh Carolina 1941—JAMES BOYD—1944 Katharine Boyd Editor C. Benedict News Editor Dan S. Ray Gen. Mgr. C. G. Council Advertising ^ Mary Scott Newton Busine Bessie Cameron Smith Societ; Composing Room Lochamy McLesm, Dixie B. Ray, I Michael 'Yalen, Jasper Swearingen Subscription Rates: 'One Year $4. 6 mos. $2; 3 mos. $11 Entered at the PostofSice at South ern Pines, N. C« as second class| mall matter Member National Editorial and N. C. Press AsSn.
The Pilot (Southern Pines, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Aug. 6, 1954, edition 1
2
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75