DEVONPORT AFFAIRS.

Auckland Star, Volume LI, Issue 292, 7 December 1920, Page 9

DEVONPORT AFFAIRS.

(To the Editor.) gj r> —With reference to the poll that takes place on Wednesday next, it appears to mc that the Borough Council are dilatory in supplying the ratepayers with full information. They should ere this have submitted a list of the amounts allocated to each road, and also where the work is proposed to start. The Council should have called a public meeting and explained the whole matter. I notice a meeting is called at the eleventh hour in conjunction with the Good Roads Campaign Committee, but this seems to mc to be unsatisfactory. We are all aware that good roads are wanted at Devonport, but it is a question whether the present is an opportune time to sitart this. The second poll is putting the Borough to expense, whereas the poll could have been taken in April next in conjunction with the election of the Mayor and councillors, when the whole question of the loan could have been properly ventilated. As it stands at present I very much doubt whether any ratepayer is in a sound position to decide as to which way to vote. When one considers the neglect of the roads and footpaths during the past years, which has apparently been done so that such work as Stanley Street and Fleet Street should be made show roads, evidently not for the benefit of the ratepayers generally, but, especially in the case of Stanley Street, for the convenience of the visitors to the football, and cricket grounds, one feels doubtful albout entrusting the present council with the expenditure of loan money. Devonport is a residential borough and not a "business area and this undue haste on the part of the council appears to be more for the catering for the visitors to Devonport and not the ratepayers, who have to foot the bill.—l am, cix., SMALL RATEPAYER. December 4. (To the Ediitor.) >ir, —That things are not always what they seem to* be, was fully exemplified at the last Devonport Borough Council meeting when an animated'and somewhat instructive discussion took place over the request of the combined executive of the Ratepayers' Associations that a schedule of the the council's expenditure on the streets and footpaths within the borough be forwarded every six months. The re-queet was made iwith the idea of helping the council, and would also, as your report of the meeting states, have the effect of preventing extravagant statements being circulated in regard to the -n-ork of the council. If this is destructive criticism, well T don't know what constructive criticism ie, because the object was to place the real facts before the people, and that was an effort which should have been backed by every member of the council. All that was asked tor was that an extra copy of the monthly return of works progress and expenditure, instituted four years ago, be printed off and cent on purely a« a matter of courtesy to a large body of men and women who meet to deliberate on civic affairs in their respective districts and who have little time during business -hours to go to the office to inspect the iftgiures. The giving of the ?«hedule would not have taken ifive minutes extra time once in cix months, and yet the simple re*iue?t Tnr it drepped like 'n .bombshell into the council'- <Ip,ribera.tons. The council has proved itself supersensitive in the matter and become needlessly alarme-d and agitated, and all tr> no purpose. It m'-ght be well to explain that the executive is only the mouthpiece of the main associations.

that it does nothing which is not endorsed by these parent associations. The motive of its formation was to do away with parochialism and to bring about a community of interest, so that the people of the North Shore could sometimes speak with one voice on mutters pertaining to the well-being of the boroivgh and act together where necessary, instead of as so many different ■unite. Ite object is to construct and not destroy, and as such it is deserving of decent treatment and respect I "am ctc '> W. K. HOWPTT. '