LOAN PROPOSALS,

Evening Post, Volume LXXXI, Issue 41, 18 February 1911, Page 9

LOAN PROPOSALS,

EASTBOURNE SCHEMES. DISCUSSED BY CORRESPONDENTS. THE MAYOR'S VIEWS. TO THE EDITOE. Sir, — For the benefit of those who desire to know the true position of affairs regarding tho Eastbourne Borough Council's loan proposals, I take this opportunity of laying it before the ratepayers, and, incidentally, of answering somewhat biased statements of some recent correspondents. In a civilised community the very first essential is a good and sufficient watersupply, and the second a reliable sanitary system. Up to the present Eastbourne has perforce had to be content with makeshift arrangementis in both theso essentials, and the council has become convinced of tho necessity of improving matters. The district is becoming more populous each year, and the large number resident there during the summer season, approximately 1500, has been the cause for concern as to water and sanitation. Your correspondents have referred to the present proposals as being wild, etc. As a matter of fact, the council hss given very great attention to the question, and none know better than those two councillors who are opposing the schemes. Neither of those two gentlemen resides permanently in the borough, and neither appears to have understood the wants of the residents. Tho source of the proposed supply is th© Gollan's Valley stream (on the borough's own property), tho water being of the purest. When your correspondent, "Ratepayer," states that the water is the drainage from the Gollan's Valley swamps it is a perversion. The statements as to the cost are also made with the evident intention of misleading ratepayers. . The engineer's estimates are quite definite, and are to be accepted before those of prejudiced opponents. The fact is that the cost of such excellent schemes is lower «han those opponents could wish, and they therefore unconsciously commend the proposals as far as cost is concerned. Then there are the ridiculous statements as to the cost of water connections, it being stated that ,the interest on outlay will bo about £1 10s a year. Why, in most cases, the actual cost of the water connection will not exceed that amount. Much is also made of tho supposed cost oi supervision, maintenance, etc. It must be remembered that the water from head works to dwelling is solely by gravitation, no heavy pumping expenses being incurred, as in the case of many suburban schemes. There is absolutely no justification for alarmist statements as to heavy charges for upkeep, etc. We are told that many residents have a good supply from permanent reservoirs and wells. Experience shows that these wells are a source of danger, particularly where drainage is in a primitive state, and as for tho private reservoirs, they are causing anxiety at th© present time, although we liavo only had about twelve days' dry weather. Tho correspondent "Week-ender" is pleased to disparage the work of the council, and his reference to them as a "clique" is, perhaps, unworthy of notice, since the electors have shown confidence in them by their election. To say that the previous loan was "wasted on most senseless extravagance" is going rather far. If roads, foot-paths, storm-water drains, etc., are luxuries, then it would be pleasing to know what is a necessity. Every lair critic will admit that good work was done with that loan, and that every penny was spent to the very best advantage. These attempts to maliciously discredit the council are hardly fair when a matter of the utmost importance to the welfare of th© borough is under consideration. Ratepayers should be allowed to deal with the question on its_ merits, and not have their views poisoned by personal animus. The details of the schemes have been made as public as opportunity would allow, and the council desires each ratepayer to consider the matter for himself. Thoso who object have the right to vote against the schemes at tho ballotbox, and it is regrettable thai they should descend to methods calculated to mislead others. — 1 am, etc. } H. W. SHORTT, Mayor of Eastbourne. "LET US AWAIT DEVELOPMENTS." TO THE EDITOE. Sir, — I am in receipt of a circular from th© Eastbourne Borough Council proposing a further borrowing scheme of nearly £18,000. As a ratepayer I take it as an insult to our beautiful little borough to have such an absurd proposal placed before it. We have plenty of water and with shingle and sand we have natural drainage. Why do people leave us after summer? Has anyone left tho district because water has not been available? Will permanent residents come if we provide them with more water than they want, but cannot give them better communications ? The first sensible thing to do is to get comfortable, rapid and frequent communications. Eastbourne has gone ahead rery well, thanks to the .good roads throughout the district allowing easy access to property. One of the Mayor's strongest reasons for spending £9000 on water was that a few young trees on the main road had died. A few shillings spent on wind protection would have saved them. Why do we want to be taxed on our houses for. this proposed gigantic and unnecessary loan? I venture to say that these proposals are doing our healthy borough great harm and holding the place up to ridicule from all and sundry. Surely the change of taxation for proposed loans from the land to land and buildings and all improvements does not encourage progress. People wanting cheap land would be afraid of putting a decent house on same for a permanent residence. Apart from the loans being unnecessary, we are so small that- wo cannot take the risk of a huge bungle^ Wo ar© six years old and ow© £5000 already. Why th© stampede to borrow £20,000 to start a water and sewerage scheme for 5000 people, when we have not 500 permanent residents? Let us await developments. We have a ferry service that naturally has to look to Its* shareholders first, but we, on the other hand, cannot expect something for nothing, and more can bo gained by mutual business arrangements than by always growling at' on© another. Get your communications settled before you allow the borrowing of £20,000. — I ,am, etc., ANTI-PLUNGER.