CAMPAIGN ADDRESSES.

Auckland Star, Volume LXII, Issue 94, 22 April 1931, Page 10

CAMPAIGN ADDRESSES.

DEVONPORT MAYORALTY

MR. HISLOP REVIEWS .WORK.

" Mr. J. Hislop, Mayor of Devonport, addressed a; meeting of ratepayers last evening. Mr. S. Parker presided. Mr. Hislop gave a resume of his many activities of a public character associated with th'e administration of Devonport during the past eight years. For four years Mr. Hislop held the post of deputyMayor, and upon Mr. E. Aldridge's retirement Mr. Hislop assumed the Mayoral chair. Referring to the question of the lighting of Devonport, Mr. Hislop stated that with his co-operation the ratepayers had disposed of their plant to the . Waitemata Power, Board, for '£61,000, so that Devonport "had got rid of its electrical equipment that would have proved a burden for all time. Ever since the inception of the power board it had continued to increase its profits. Reference was also made to the lands in the borough controlled by the Defence Department. He said the borough comprised some 661 acres, 70 of which were held by the Defence Department, which did not contribute revenue to the council. At the same time the council wafe expected to provide .roads, footpaths and means of access to these properties. If these lands were rated the borough would b« in receipt of an extra £5000 per annum. Negotiations had been prosecuted for years with the Defence Department with the idea of obtaining relief. The latest development was that the Defence Department was having some 28 subdivided. This had a valuation of £56,000. which would produce between £2000 and £2500 per year in rates.

A great amount of criticism had been levelled at the council in regard to the water service, said Mr. Hislop. He urged the 'ratepayers to preserve control of Lake Pupu'ke, which had a capacity to provide water for the whole of the North Shore and could be made adequate to provide 200,000 people jit a cost of £50.000. The council had also been severely criticised for its omission to expend much money on the subsidiary streets. It was intended to expend £2000 on tarring footpaths, but s a greater and more "important work utilised the money, for.the wuolo of the "wateimains had been cleaned; out. Mr. Hislop concluded his address by referring to the council's attitude regarding the harbour bridge. Its object,. which he said had been achieved, was that the ratepayers should have their properties removed from the jeopardy of beintr taxed to pay for the construction of the bridge. ' Mr. Hislop was accorded a vote of thanks and confidence.