990133_Page_3

OverviewTranscribeVersionsHelp

Here you can see all page revisions and compare the changes have been made in each revision. Left column shows the page title and transcription in the selected revision, right column shows what have been changed. Unchanged text is highlighted in white, deleted text is highlighted in red, and inserted text is highlighted in green color.

3 revisions
Seattle Municipal Archives at Sep 09, 2020 06:52 PM

990133_Page_3

my houses so I could rent them to better advantage
whereupon the Supt charged me one dollar extra
for the water upstairs in each house thereby
taking just one fifth of the my rents. and this because
each house was supplied by two separate familys
Now why should a man be charged twice as
much for five persons occupying the same house
and using water from the same service, as he
would be for eight persons occupying the same house
and using water from the same service
simply because in the one case those occupying one
room are known by the name Jones, and those
occupying another room in the same house are
known by the name of Brown, and in the
other case all answer to the same name.
Now I have not had a many as eight persons
in either of my houses for more that a year
past, but have been obliged to pay on each house
the full rate for 18 persons. Now in all candure
I do think that this sort of thing should not be
allowed to go any longer, and I do think that I
should be allowed a rebate on my water rent equal
to the amount erronously collected. which
is $16.00 being $2.00 per month (one dollar each house)

990133_Page_3

my houses so I could rent them to better advantage
whereupon the Supt charged me one dollar extra
for the water upstairs in each house thereby
taking just one fifth of the my rents. and this because
each house was supplied by two separate familys
Now why should a man be charged twice as
much for five persons occupying the same house
and using water from the same service, as he
would be for eight persons occupying the same house
and using water from the same service
simply because in the one case those occupying one
room are known by the name Jones, and those
occupying another room in the same house are
known by the name of Brown, and in the
other case all answer to the same name.
Now I have not had a many as eight persons
in either of my houses for more that a year
past, but have been obliged to pay on each house
the full rate for 18 persons. Now in all candure
I do think that this sort of thing should not be
allowed to go any longer, and I do think that I
should be allowed a rebate on my water rent equal
to the amount erronously collected. which
is $16.00 being $2.00 per month (one dollar each house)