MOUNT ALBERT'S POSITION.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 57, 8 March 1932, Page 10

MOUNT ALBERT'S POSITION.

MERGER BENEFITS DENIED

QUESTION OP WATER CHARGES,

Five speakers addressed a gathering of Mount Albert ratepayers at the Carlton Hall, Sandringham, last night on the question of the proposed merger of the borough in the city. Mr. A. B. Hart presided. The principal speaker, Mr. E. H. Potter, who was specially asked to address the ratepayers as representative of the Hospital, Transport, and Electric Power Boards,, said that, if the borough joined the city, there would be a larger unit than could be controlled'. He advocated local body government, with a metropolitan .board. He eaid that such obtained in London, and that in Sydney a metropolitan board had been formed to control the larger interests of the 00 boroughs, and it had had the effect of lessening the cost.to the people, Mr. Potter advised the gathering that, if they chose to cast their votes on Wednesday to remain a separate borough, they should get their council to make an annual revaluation. He estimated that a change-over to that system of valuation would produce £350,000. At 4/ in the £, this amount would produce £70,000. An additional revenue of £10,000 would be got from various other sources. He said that, the borough of Mount Albert was making great progress until the depression, which began in 1929, took them by surprise. The borough had carried out already a large portion of its major work, particularly in the direction of drainage operations. In concluding his address, Mr. Potter advised the ratepayers to get under the control of a water board, a power board and a transport board, for by so doing the cost of living would be .considerably reduced. Mount Albert's Loans.

Mr. R. E. N. Matthews said that no word had been said by the City Council as to how Mount Albert was going to benefit under the amalgamation. The City Council had nothing to offer Mount Albert, but wished to thwart the formation of a water board, as a large portion of its revenue came from the sale of water to the ratepayers. On the question of loans, he pointed out that there would be no desire by the Mount Albert Council to raise any more. On the present exchange rate the borough had benefited considerably by having borrowed money only locally and in Australia. Prom loans in Melbourne there had been a saving of £2236. The City Council had its loans mostly in London, and, as the exchange rate between New Zealand and England was against New Zealand, it had suffered a considerable loss. "You will have to pay about 100 per cent more for your water if you amalgamate with the city," said Mr. E. Stevenson. The City Council was making about 200 per cent profit from the Mount Albert ratepayers, who bought their water from the city. No advantage was. to be derived from amalgamation -with the cityi as the Mount Albert ratepayers would have to pay the same high rates. The position could be understood better by. waiting another three years.

Amalgamation and Union. Mr. F. C. Jacobs discussed the difference between "amalgamation" and "union." He said that by union with the City, Mount Albert would be entitled to enjoy equal rights with the city. Such was the meaning of union in the Local Bodies Act. But the City Council had not proposed union, but amalgamation, which meant the joining of a lesser borough to a larger borough, with unequal representation. If the city wanted to amalgamate, it should comply with the Act and get the permission of onetenth of the electors.

Mrs. Essie Kneen Kerruish spoke briefly on behalf of the mothers and children of the district. She stated that because of the present water rates, children were not able to have sufficient baths.