THE PROPOSALS ANALYSED. TO THE EDITOR.

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

THE PROPOSALS ANALYSED. TO THE EDITOR.

Sir, — I have noted a letter or two in your columns belabouring the water supply and drainage schemes now under consideration by tho ratepayers and freeholders of Eastbourne, and I have heard the two proposals publicly and privately discussed. Every man, of course, is within his rights in opposing as strenuously as he can any proposal of which he does not approve, and there never was yet a proposal of which h© does not approve, and there never was yet a proposal for a public work, even if pi Benefit to the community, m city

or borough, that did not have opponents, unless the communal benefit could be got for nothing. However, it appears to me that the proposals at present before the ratepayers and freeholders of Eastbourne are easily capable of being dispassionately considered and judged. The details of the schemes proposed to be adopted, the advice and estimates of two well-known engineers, and the actual rates proposed to be allotted to payment for the schemes, are definite, facts available to the knowledge of everyone. The "extra amount payable by each man in rates, if he votes for one or both proposals, can be ascertained by each man himself sinco he knows tho capital value placed on his property by the Government Valuation Department, and the rate is struck per pound of capital value : the public benefit to the district in convenience, lire prevention, public health protection, and attraction for new resident families, each man must estimate for himself. Vagu© and alarmist guesswork and assertion and equally vague exaggeration will probably be judicially enough examined by tho ratepayer who is sensible enough to recognise that the council he has put in office and can put out of office is not likely, for preference anyhow, to bo attempting to ruin the district. Reforring for the present to tho water supply proposal only and its cost to the ratepayer and freeholder : there are three classes of people to be considered : (1) the man who has already an adequate private water supply, and him I leave to his estimate of his duty to his neighbour, (2) tho man who wants water laid on to his house and garden,. (3) the man who wants water available in the district but does not for th© pre&ent require to lay it on to his property. The cost to 'No. 2, who, wants to use the water, will be three farthings in the £ on tho capital (total) value of his property as an occupied holding, that is 6s 3d per £100. If his house and land are worth £400, and he lays on water, he will pay 25s extra per year— not a large annual payment. Th© cost to No. 3, who wants the water available to be laid on when required, will be just half what No. 2 pays— 3s l^d per £100,% or 12s 6d for that £400 property. The owner of an unoccupied section valued ao £100 will m such circumstances pay 3s l^d per year to have the water near nis land. There is one other point to be considered by the man who has to lay water on—the cost of connections. The cost of his indoor* system will depend, of course, on the number of his taps and pipes, that is in his own hands. The actual cost of connection from th© main to the house will in most cases be under £3. Let the householder ring up any loading firm of plumber* in the city and find out for himself before he votes. The proposal is not being thrust down the throats of the ratepayers by the council; it is submitted for their calm judgment. The drainage proposal I will deal with later.— l am, etc., W. J. ORGAN. Wellington, 16th Feb., 1911.