Municipal Markets

Collier's New Encyclopedia (1921)

marts for the buying and selling of foodstuffs controlled by the town or city . In primitive countries this consists of an open space farmers from the outlaying districts within the municipality, where the gather on certain days to sell their produce to the townspeople. In modern cities markets consists usually of well-equipped and especially in this country municipal buildings let to private storekeepers, trol, for the purpose of combating unjustified profit-making of the great body of food merchants of the city. During especially since the close of the war, the war days in the United States, and many cities have considered the advisability of taking up the actual sale of foodstuffs in the markets as well, but this has not yet been widely practiced . The idea of the municipal market is still to and consumer may meet without the unprovide an open market where producer whose prices are more or less under condue intervention of middlemen. ership, and usually the operation, of MUNICIPAL OWNERSHIP, the ownpublic services or industries by a municiis a question which within recent years pality, on a nonprofit -making basis. This has become the subject of much debate between those in favor of private industry as a fundamental principle and those in favor of the "socialization" of public service and industry. has made much more progress abroad The practice of municipal ownership than in the United States, more especially in Germany. There , in such cities as Berlin and Hamburg the principle has been extended to the ownership and operation by the city of such enterprises as and the preparation for the market of housing, the slaughter of food animals their meat and even, in some smaller cities, the production communal land. on of field crops on In the United States municipal ownerlimited to the public utilities, and someship has so far been almost entirely times these are merely owned by the municipality and leased out for operation to private corporations. Municipal enterprises may generally be classified under these heads: those which constitute natural monopolies, such as the supply of water; those which involve the granting of special privileges, such as the use of the main streets for street railway transportation; and those which are inseparable from the maintenance of the public health, as is the case with the cleaning of the streets and the disposal of refuse and sewage. But even within these narrow limitations American cities have not taken up municipal ownership on a very wide scale. The development of this movement in the United States may be judged from the following figures: Out of 204 American cities, having a population of over 30,000, there are 156 which own and operate their own water-supply systems. No city with a population over 300,000 is supplied with water by private corporations. Here we have the widest development of municipal ownership in the United States. Obviously, the supply of water closely involves the health of the citizens of a community. In the matter of municipal lighting the field is much less extended. Of the 204 cities with populations over 30,000, only 21 own and operate their own lighting plants, of which Detroit and Chicago are the most notable examples. Throughout the country 1,500 municipalities supply their own lighting. Almost entirely this is where electric lighting is employed. For of the 204 cities considered, only five operate gas lighting plants, the largest of which is Richmond, Va. Municipal ownership and operation of street railways, in which considerable progress has been made in European cities, has few examples in this country. Boston and New York City have both built and now own extensive railway systems, railway but both these cities have leased their systems to private corporations for operation. In 1913 San Francisco took over a large part of its street railways. During the first year of operation by the city, the municipal street railways netted the city a surplus of $45,000. Contrasted to this apparent success, is the experience of Philadelphia, which, many years ago, took over the operation of a municipal gas lighting plant. In 1897 the enterprise was pronounced a failure, largely on account of the political corruption which it involved, and the lighting system of the city was leased to a private corporation. Glasgow, Scotland, is usually pointed out as an example of successful municipal ownership. In 1894 Glasgow took over what were then its horse-car lines, 64 miles in length. The city has since installed modern electric transportation and lengthened the municipally operated lines 200 miles. Fares have been reduced, and the cost of operation has been reduced from $1.80 per mile to 88 cents per mile. This enterprise has now created a balance in the city treasury in its favor amounting to $150,000. In more recent years Glasgow has taken over the problem of municipal housing, with the result that many of the old obnoxious slum districts have been wiped out and replaced by well-kept rows of working-class houses, rented out to their tenants at very near cost price. As already stated, numbers of German communities have carried the practice of municipal ownership into the supply of foodstuffs. In the United States, where municipal freedom is much more limited by the State constitutions, specific laws on the statute books forbid local communities competing with private enterprises. Such proved to be the case when the Socialist party, electing the mayor and city council of Schenectady, N. Y., in 1911, attempted to establish a central depot for the supply of ice and groceries to the citizens. A decision of the courts compelled the abandonment of the enterprise, which was turned over to a co-operative society. With the rapid rise in the prices of foodstuffs during and after the war, a decided movement has been initiated for the municipal supply of foodstuffs in American cities. This was strongly stimulated when the War Department, in Washington, placed its surplus food supplies on the market for distribution in the fall of 1919, to be distributed among the people on a limited, or non-profit basis. Under the supervision of the city authorities, the city of New York distributed large quantities of these supplies, utilizing the public schools as centers of distribution. Following this example, thousands of smaller communities throughout the country undertook to receive assignments of foodstuffs from the War Department and distribute them among their citizens at nearly cost price, the stipulation being that no profit should be made. Municipal milk supply is a special phase of this class of municipal ownership which has received much consideration in recent years. In Great Britain this idea has been put into limited practice and is being advocated by many popular organizations, especially of women. Here, however, the question of public health is closely involved, so that MUNKÁCS milk is considered well within the legitimate scope of municipal enterprise, even by people otherwise against ainst too wide a broadening of municipal ownership. Of the political parties the Progressives have stood for a considerable extension of the principle of ownership, while the Socialists consider it one of the fundamental planks of their platform. MUNKÁCS (mön-käch'), a markettown of Hungary, at the foot of the Carpathians, 101 miles N. E. of Debreczin; has mines of iron and rock-crystals, called Hungarian diamonds. The citadel, built on an isolated height, resisted the imperial arms for three years (1685- 1688); and having fallen in 1848 into the hands of the Hungarians was captured by the Russians in the following year. It is now a state prison. Pop. about 18,000.