NORTH SHORE DESTRUCTOR.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 208, 3 September 1929, Page 6

NORTH SHORE DESTRUCTOR.

At last night's meeting of the Xorth Sliora Destructor Committee it is reported that Mr. Slinger, Takapuna Borough engineer, stated that the experiment of burning refuse on three days a week only had "been successful and that the smoke nuisance had been minimised. What does he mean by "minimised"? We might suggest that he means we have some relief on the days that the destructor is not in use, but it makes up for it with interest on the three days it is burning. We land owners and residents within its radius know it, and we have an idea that those, or some of those, controlling the abominable thing know it, too, but are afraid to admit it. There is not one of the Destructor Committee or mem- N ber of the council that would not make a,s much fuss and objection to the present site as any one of us if they had to live in the vicinity, or had property within its radius. We sufferers can understand the attitude of the Xortlicote Council. Perhaps they foresee the trouble and expense that is ahead._ If the latest move of the Destructor Committee is its only remedy, then we land owners can take no other course to protect our homes than appeal to the law courts. A. BLOMFIELD, President, Western Area Ratepayers and

Residents' Association. MOUNT ROSS.ILL POLL. The apathy of ratepayers towards loan proposals was demonstrated on Saturday when Mount Roskill ratepayers were asked to decide for or against a concrete roading scheme of £<>6,700 and a drainage scheme (for special area) of £02,000. The roads loan, the most necessarv of the two, was defeated by 75 votes, but here is the rub: Out of 2423 ratepayers, who have an aggregate of 3500 votes, only SO6 valid votes were cast, or, roughly, twentylive per cent. It is high time the. "heads" made some attempt to interest the community in these proposals, and I am certain if the board were to present them in a business-like manner, thereby showing that it really had the interest of the district at heart, there would be a marked increase in returns on polling day and the result would express confidence in the board. Xo matter where one goes oi« will always find the opposition organised, so why not try to counter it? Surely if a proposal is worth putting to the vote it is worth boosting. But no, they take a chance_ and then adopt a "goodness-gracious-I-had-no-idea attitude when defeat is announced, which in turn signifies inability to conduct a campaign. As a result the maintenance of the two above roads will continue to be a financial drain, and we dread the advent of summer with its attendant dust, which is a menace to health and ruinous to property. The drainage proposal elicited a little better response, for out of 509 ratepayers in the area with a total of 647 votes 2SI were recorded. The above involves an expenditure estimated at £62.000, and the area, as far as I can gather, with the exception of Dominion Road, embraces all the open spaces. As a matter of fact, none of those responsible seem to know what are the boundaries of this work of importance. However, it has been carried, and the 509 ratepayers are faced with an extra rate of £2 6/10 for every £100 of their valuation. Is it any wonder that great blocks of residential flats are springing up everywhere? The result of the poll is entirely lacking in consistency — a scheme that is most necessary to the advancement of the district and which would eventually prove a saving, is rejected, while the other, which will undoubtedly prove too costly for the majority in the area, is carried. The age-old adage that we live and learn is quite true. We are learning (at a price), but it is certain we will not be able to live. OMAC.