[Clipping: City Action Vs. County Talk] Part: 1 of 2
1 clipping (2 p.) ; 26 x 13 cm.View a full description of this clipping.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
City Action V
Houston's Mayor Cutrer laid the
current city-county charity hospital
wrangle on the line yesterday.
The City of Houston is not bluffing,
he said. It is not going to continue to
use city taxpayers' money to foot a
bill for services to the county as a
whole. It is going to turn over to the
county over a five-year period the
charity hospital operation, whether
county officials want it or not.
Good for him-and for members of City
Council who are backing him almost unani-
mously.
* * *
Figure it out for yourself. Some 75
per cent of the county taxpayers are
Houstonians who also pay their city
taxes. The city has been paying 70 per
cent of the hospital's $5 million plus
annual bill, the county only 30 per cent.
City of Houston taxpayers have been paying
twice, the others only once, to meet these costs.
Houstonians have been paying 70 per cent of
all expense through their city treasury and 75
per cent of 30 per cent or 22.5 per cent through
the county treasury.
So the City of Houston's taxpayers, who
should be paying 75 per cent, have been paying
92.5 per cent. The others, who should pay 25
per cent, have been paying only 7.5 per cent.
Think of that. Especially when the City of
Houston has not now nor has it ever had the
slightest legal obligation or authority to furnish
hospitals even to its own citizens, much less
for the 300,000 living elsewhere in the county.
* * *
County officials are bubbling over
with reasons vhy Harris County can
not-will not s 'me say - take over
operation of te -charity hospitals with
county tPx funds.
Auditor S. B. Bruce flatly says the county
hasn't got the money. He explains that through
some magic sort of bookkeeping it really was
necessary for the county to budget 20 per cent.County Talk
more (up $4.2 million) for 1962 than it actually
spent in 1961-but only $100,000 more for hos-
pitals.
Next came County Attorney Joe Resweber.
e held in a formal ruling the county isn't
required to furnish medical care to any but
legal paupers, even if it had the money.
County Commissioners Phil Sayers and Kyle i
Phapman-neither up for re-election this year i
.--cited history. They pointed to the long period
ouston has not only paid but actually man- e
ged the hospital in large measure. Apparently
their view is once a sucker, always a sucker.
They said the city's withdrawal would cause
the charity hospitals to shut down because the
county wouldn't do anything more.
* * *
A county is a branch office of the
State of Texas, created to collect taxes,
'dispense justice, enforce the law and
provide services under the laws of the
state only at the local level.
It can not make its own laws, as can a
home-rule city. It must operate solely under
,the statutes passed by the Legislature as well
as the Constitution adopted by the people of
the state.
That's what a county is. It is one of the
older subdivisions of government, harking back
to when counts ran counties for kings, sent
him his share of the taxes regularly, and kept
the rest to pay local expenses Qf keeping things
in good order under the king's instructions.
This worked in reverse, too. A count could
call on the King for help. So, today can a
Texas county call on the state-if it really
needs help.
jHarris County still functions that way. It
will send to Austin this year something like
,$6 million in state taxes, retaining nearly $30
million here. Both are due to increase steadily.
Mr. truce argues the increase in total county
population directly forces up the county's costs
lin a&mqst every major service, reardless of
fthe epansion of Houston and the other 26
incorporated areas in the county.
In a few fields, yes. In general, no. And the
county (unincorporated area) has shrunk like
a punctured balloon since 1955, due to huge
nnexations by Houston, Baytown, Pasadena
lus the many new incorporations.
Will county policy down through the years
continue to be to spend-or to try to spend-
every penny that comes in as the cities and
communities continue to build and build? Cer-
tainly there is a saturation point on this. we
believe this one-time vital branch office of the
state has reached it.
As to Mr. Resweber's opinion, he
he does admit the county's responsi-
bility to indigents. Considering the
number of eleemosnary institutions
the state operates, he could hardly
do less.
Maybe the law does not specifically require
a county government to operate a charity hos-
pital. Many of the smaller ones would not
need it.
How, though, does Mr. Resweber suggest a
metropolitan area like Harris County take care
of its ailing indigents except in a centralized
way, which is to say a hospital.
The City of Houston has both logic
and legality on its side in this matter.
Its only weakness is that it was a chump
for a long time.
What puzzles us is this: As eager as the
county officials have been to perpetuate their
somewhat archaic subdivision of government
and themselves to run same, it would seem they
would welcome--not resist-a chance to operate
a service that benefits all the people they tax.
Upcoming Parts
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This clipping can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this part or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current part of this Clipping.
[Clipping: City Action Vs. County Talk], clipping, 1962; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth1484706/m1/1/: accessed July 16, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rosenberg Library.