M.E.D. PROFITS FOR STREET LIGHTING

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21727, 9 March 1936, Page 8

M.E.D. PROFITS FOR STREET LIGHTING

TO THE EDXTOE OF THE PEEB3. . . Sir,—Your correspondent, “Ratepayer;” has quite evidently hopped into the arena of party politics to mislead the public at the forthcoming municipal by-election. His eulogies of Mr Beanland for his* suggested transfer of £9OOO from the Municipal Electricity Department funds are really amusing. Does “Ratepayer” not re T member that Mr Beanland and his confreres of the Citizens’ Association assailed the Labour party at the last municipal election for , using Municipal Department funds and stated that they were too lily-white to be guilty of such a thing. Now we find “‘Ratepayer” commending Mr Beanland for, opposing his and its policy. ;> > “Ratepayer” then goes .on to. try -to mislead with some half-truths about tramway matters, and .there is little wonder that he is ashamed to sign his name to> such stuff. What he has failed to tell the pbbllc on this matter I will endeavour to do as briefly as possible. When the Labour board took control it engaged two non-partisan accountants to report on the position of the board, and the following extracts from their report tells the true position. " “It is fully realised.” say these accountants, “that; the board is in the Siosition of the greatest difficulty, and ust how difficult the position is can be seen by comparing certain figures from the yea is 1919 to 1933.”

They then proceed to state that these figures show the whole unfortunate position, that has arisen. The debt has increased greatly, earnings increased very little while the passengers carried have shown a substantial falling off. The accountants then tell at some length how the old board mismanaged things, and summed up the position as follows: “We have to say therefore that we can see no alternative but to levy a rate for the deficiency.” This was the legacy which the Citizens’ board left to the Labour board, and which “Ratepayer” endeavours to camouflage for his nefarious objective. Your correspondent finally goes on to make apologies by saying that Mr Beanlancf does not want to take all the, M.E.D. funds for the ratepayers, but’ only about one-third. Surely If it is a wise project to take one-third, it Would be a greater one to take the lot, and it would then ease the burden of rates for poor, struggling ratepayers who are holding sections for speculative purposes, and whose sections contribute nothing to the M.E.D. funds. Finally, I Would like' to tell “Ratepayer” a secret,, and one he will no doubt commend Mr Beanland for. Recently I asked for a return of the number of permanent hands employed by the works department of the council 12 months ago as compared with to-day The official return stated that 12 months ago there were 217, to-day 201. This shows that the present council has dispensed with 16 permanent hands, and no doubt the work done by these 16 men is being done with labour subsidised by the Unemployment Board. To summarise the position, it would seem that the future policy of the present council is to get rid of the permanent staff and do the work with relief labour and raid the MED. funds to keep rates down.—Yours, etc, E. PARLANE. March 7, 1936.

1919. 1933. Loan liability € £ £ 569,250 1,170,750 601,500 (Inc.) Earnings 166,445 184,838 18,393 (Inc.) Passengers .. 21,623,692 16,913 075 4,710,617 (Dec.)