Laserfiche WebLink
k- , <br />South Bend, Ind. April 5, 1933. <br />To the Honorable City Council of South Bend, Indiana. <br />We, the undersigned citizens and tax payers of the City of South Bend, do hereby express <br />our most setious opposition to the proposed "fly -by- night" merchants= bill, now pending before <br />the Council, on the grounds that it places an unjustified burdern on the citizens of South Ben <br />, <br />who in the future might desire to enter the mercantile field and we believe that the dis- <br />• <br />advanta es to the city, as a whole, would greatly exceed the advantages.' ( Signed by 29 <br />signers The remonstrance was accepted and was referred to the Committee of the whole.*otion <br />carried. <br />REMONSTRANCE. <br />South Bend, Ind., Apr. 9, 19330 <br />{ <br />To the Honorable Members, South Bend City Council. In session Apra 10, 1933. <br />I <br />Gentlemen: Ai a merchant and resident of South Bend for nearly a quarter century wish <br />I <br />respectfully to protest against the proposed ordinance for bonding prospective merchants. <br />As it I-believe that it offers <br />refer to the so- called "fly -by- night" ordinance. stands <br />possibilities of great g harm to legitimate merchants. The three hundred dollar bond,and <br />R <br />the re giving of great powers to the City Controller a two features which I most emphatically <br />„ <br />protest. They might be almost "insuperable obibtacles to any one entering business. <br />to protect established merchants more though should be given to <br />If it is deemed advisable <br />the man of small means:; and if something must be done l respectfully recommend the Grand Rapids., <br />Mich. idea that a six months bona fide lease is in itself sufficient evidence that the <br />to or less part of the local community. <br />merchantz intents to try become a more permanent <br />It to me that the independent - .merchant is bothered very little by the few feeble <br />seems <br />"fly- by- bnights" who come,in; the big ruinous competition comes from large combinations who <br />a last though along the line of good old- <br />would not be affected by the ordinance at all. And as <br />fashioned Americanism I quote the following from an article written some time ago by Presiders <br />Roosevelt; "Each group has sought protection from the government for its own special interest <br />be to favor no small group at the expe <br />se <br />without realizing that the function of government must <br />of its duty to protect the rights of personal freedom and &f provate property of all its citi <br />ensh • <br />Yours respectfully, P. H. Doremus 110 S. Main St. This remonstrance was accepted and ordered <br />to be referred to the Committee of the Whole. Motion carried. <br />REMONSTRANCE. <br />South Bend, Ind. April 6, 1933. <br />To the Honorable City Council of South Bend, Ind.' <br />We, the undersigned owners of real estate or equities in real estate, mainly store buildings, <br />bill the <br />in the City of South Bend, Indiana, do hereby oppose the "fly -by- night” merchants on <br />the endeavors of future prospective <br />grounds that if it became an ordinance, it would obstruct <br />small merchants, greatly limiting our opportunities to secure tenants for our properties, <br />the. above <br />i <br />thereby reducing our ability to pay taxes on such properties. In consideration of <br />honorable council to prevent this bill from bei <br />, <br />g <br />stated objections, we sincerely appeal to the <br />( Signed by 9 signers) This Remonstrance was accepted and was referred.to the Committ <br />e <br />passed. <br />of the Whole* Motion carried. <br />REMONSTRANCE. <br />South Bend, Ind., April 9, 1933. <br />To the Honorable City Council, South Bend, Ind.' regarding the <br />to the council, at the regular meeting two weeks ago, re g g <br />Gentlemen; Since speaking <br />"fly-by-night" merchants bill, I have had occasion to diseuss.this proposed bill with many <br />South Bend citizens. <br />In many such interviews, and especially with established merchants, they have not only expr <br />sedgy <br />their oppositifti to the bill, but have suggested that if t1­ merchants, generally, really <br />See page 197) <br />