Great street sweeping debate of 1921-1923

It was the Democrats on the side of fiscal conservatism in the great street sweeping debate at Glens Falls a century ago.

It was debate between the cost savings from mechanization versus protecting the livelihoods of unskilled laborers.

It started in 1921 when Mayor W. Irving Griffing championed the purchase of a street-sweeping machine.

“The new Elgin motor street sweeper was placed in operating condition yesterday, and after it had been at work several hours on several types of pavement in different sections of the city, Mayor W. Irving Griffin and Superintendent P.F. Herlihy expressed themselves as highly satisfied with the manner in which the pavement was cleaned,” The Post-Star reported on June 4, 1921.

The street sweeping machine, factoring in depreciation, reduced the cost of cleaning the city’s streets by $40 per day, or about $8,000 — the equivalent of $140,917 in 2024 dollars — per season.

“The machine fulfilled all expectations. It cleaned the streets thoroughly,” a later Post-Star editorial proclaimed May 8, 1923.

Yet it became contentious because the machine replaced 20 human sweepers, earing $3 a day — the equivalent of $52.84 in 2024 dollars — who would be put out of work.

“The cry was heard that a Democratic mayor was taking bread from the mouths of children, that a Democratic mayor was depriving poor men of their livelihoods,” The Post-Star editorialized on May 8, 1923.

The debate continued to boil, and Republican Charles Cool, looking to make a political come-back, made it an issue in the March 1922 mayoral election.

Cool had been the city’s first mayor in 1908, but he lost mayoral races in 1910 and 1912.

“Mr. Cool was elected, and the sweeper was placed in storage,” The Post-Star editorialized. “It was realized that this would cause criticism, so a plan was devised whereby fewer men were appointed sweepers and then the men were assisted by men who were not so designated.”

However, the plan resulted in no real savings, according to The Post-Star, a Democratic-aligned newspaper at the time.

The controversy continued, and, in response to public opinion, the Common Council voted 5–1 to research returning the street sweeper to operation.

“Mayor Cool strenuously objected to its use. He pictured the present sweepers as old men unable to do any work except for the city, apparently innocent of the fact that as mayor, it is his duty to see that the city gets one hundred cents’ worth for every dollar expended, and apparently forgetful of the fact that with public money he should be just and not generous,” The Post-Star chided.

The street sweeper did not come up at the next Common Council meeting.

“At 11:40 last night, after a session that continued for three hours and a half, one of the members of the Common Council sifted a yawn and offered a motion to adjourn. It was quickly seconded and adopted without delay,” The Post-Star reported on May 17, 1923. “Nothing had been said during the meeting about the street sweeper.”

On May 23, The Post-Star reported that the city was having difficulty hiring an operator.

“So far they have been unsuccessful because, it is said, men qualified to run the machine are none too keen to accept a job which terminates when winter begins.”

Later that day an operator was hired, who would have first dibs on operating a snow plowing machine in the winter months, if the Common Council moved forward with an interest in buying one.

“If present plans are consummated, the (street sweeping) machine will be placed in operation Monday,” The Post-Star reported on May 24. “It may take a day to get it in readiness for operation after remaining idle since the fall of 1921, but the Street Committee, it is said, is anxious to get it on the streets.”

No workers would be laid off.

About ten seasonal street-sweeping employees would be reassigned to maintain dirt streets in the city, while the street sweeping machine cleaned the paved streets.

Plans went awry again when the operator that was hired changed his mind and did not report to work.

He was the second operator that had been hired and then turned down the job, The Post-Star reported on June 3.

“We seem to be having considerable difficulty finding a man, but we’ll overcome whatever obstacles may be in our way in time and the machine will be put to work. It will not be permitted to stand idle in the storehouse,” an un-named Common Council member said.