THE £700,000 SEWERAGE LOAN

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21714, 22 February 1936, Page 22

THE £700,000 SEWERAGE LOAN

TO THB EMTOE OV THB PEESB. ' ' Sir,— Relating to the £700,600 sewerage loan, I have now received from the secretary of the Drainage Board the following answers to my ' questions published in your columns on February 5. And for the benefit of other, interested ratepayers I crave further space for the answers, along with further comments on my part. The letter from the secretary of the Drainage Board reads as follows: — _ ! "I have to acknowledge receipt of your letter of February 5, and in reply, to furnish the following answers to your questions:—(l) You are not being rated to ease the financial position of the Drainage Board for the sewer inside the city area. (2) Section sof the Christchurch Drainage Amendment, 1922. provides the machinery for differential rating according -to benefits received. (3) The money collected in the special area is being used for the payment of interest and sinking fund on the loans raised and the cost of maintenance of the works undertaken out of such loans. (4) A vote of the electors was taken on the loan proposal on July 12, 1923, and was carried by 1186 to 235. The total number of voters on the roll was just short of 30,000. (5) When the sewer is further extended to include any pprtion of the indirect benefit area, the rate will be increased to equal the rate collected in the direct benefit area." In reply to the secretary of the Drainage Board, I would say: (1> In the extended area we are receiving no benefits of the sewer, direct or indirect, and if we are not being rated to ease the financial position of the Drainage Board for the sewer inside the city area. I fail to see any reason why we should be rated. (2) Differential rating according to benefits received. Does section 5 give the, Drainage Board power to strike a rate for no benefits received? (3) This answer is the key to the art of finance, and states' that we are being rated to pay interest and sinking fund, and the cost of maintenance of the sewers for the benefit of other people, after stating, in answer (1) that we are not being rated for that purpose. (4) I cannot com-! ment Very much on this answer, hav-. ing been away at that time, but I have every confidence in my neighbours' voting with the expectation of receiving something for the money they pay.' (5) When the sewer is further extended the rate will be increased to equal the rate collected in the sewer area, "which means to say," when we do get the sewer we will be rated in full over and above what we have paid, and what we will pay until such time as we get the sewer. The main question still remains unanswered. Has the Drainage Board the power to rate people and give nothing in return? If the sewer could only be brought to a certain point the rating area should be that point, when people pay money they expect something • for the money paid. My rate is very small in comparison with others, but at the same time it proves that Urgent legislation is required on the method of rating, and to rectify the mistake made by the Christchurch Drainage Board, and it is now up to ratepayers in the extended area to move in the matter, or they may be called upon to pay this rate for another 20 years before they are connected with the sewer.—Yours, etc.. WAIMAIRI RATEPAYER. P.S.—I stated in my letter to the secretary of the Drainage Board that the answers would be sent to the press, along with further comments. February 21, 1936.