RICCARTON BOROUGH v. GREATER CHIRISTCHURCH.

Press, Volume LII, Issue 15774, 15 December 1916, Page 11

RICCARTON BOROUGH v. GREATER CHIRISTCHURCH.

' TO THE EDITOR OF "THE PBBSS." Sir. —Somo little time ago a meeting of ratepayers was held in the Riccarton Town Hall, to consider _the advisability of amalgamating witn the city when Councillors Sullivan and Taylor gave an address on the subject. It was pointed out that one of the advantages to be gained by doing so would be that the administration expenses would be lowered by half what they are at present. In looking over Municipal Isotes m your paper of a later date, I see that the Town Clerk of tho borough states that this is absolutely incorrect, as the cash book shows receipts for the year ending March 19th, 1916, £8250. Mow, I 'Mr Editor, this is a most misleading | statement, as the balance-sheet for the last year shows that the expenditure was about £3000 (this of coursc does not include loan moneys). You will therefore see that Mr Taylor was not very far out with his estimate for administration expenses, the borough's expenses being about double those ot the city, and it looks as if they would be considerably increased before long. No doubt there will bo a rate struck next year to meet the electric lighting expenses as I believe they have increased the clerk's sal ait by another £40 per year on account of additional work on that scheme. I see they are also advertising for an electrical engineer, at (1 believe) a salary of_£lfco per year. How they are going 10 meet all * these expenses 1 fail to see, seeing that they have only about luO private cus- ' tomers. without imposing a heavy rate, as it is a matter of impossibility to • make it a paying concern even with tho high rate charged for the current, • which is about three times that of the city. Now. Sir, when you take into, consideration the fact that wo in lliccarton have neither high-pressure water supply, fire brigade, nor sewerage system, and an electric system that is costing private consumers so much, surely, Sir, this is proof that we would be very much better and lower rated in Greater Christchurch than wo are at present, and I think it only right that the rate- ■ payers should know exactly how they V stand, and not be led by misstatements ■■ ) to believe that things are different from what they arc. —Yours, otc., V jV AIRPLAY.