COUNCILLOR H.D. BENNETT AT MIRAMAR

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 91, 17 April 1923, Page 11

COUNCILLOR H.D. BENNETT AT MIRAMAR

Speaking at. the meeting addressed by citizens' candidates for the City Council last evening 'at Miramar, Councillor H. D. Beunobt dealt with the Kelburn tram purchase. Complaints had been made,

complaints which he thought were to a groat extent justified, that not enough information had been given to the ratepayers in connection with the suggested purchase. The last report which had been prepared in connection with the purchase was officially handed to the Tramways Committee that afternoon. There was a good deal to be said in favour of allowing: the existing system to continue as it now was. It was giving the people on that side of the city a good service; and it might be asked why a_ Bum of £45,000 should not be spent in providing a. second outlet rather than putting the money into a proposion which was already giving good service. He then traced the history of the undertaking, and alluded to the various proposals which had been made with respect to tramway transport to and from that portion of the city and suburban districts. Some little time ago a Special Committee was set up by the Tramways Committee to go into the whole question, and to report to the -council as to the vai'ioiis routes that had been suggested from time to time. That committee prepared a very exhaustive rejiort. In that report reference was irude "to tho need of giving the Karon and Northland people a. better means of access. The conclusion had been come to that the Kelburn cable car syflc-m should be purchased and be made* city property. Then the "rebellion," if ho might so term it, arose in tho council from the residents of Kelburn, who complained" that they were quite satisfied with the cable car as it now was, ai.d they feared that if it-became city proper ty the council would probably wv.ks a tramway connection which would mean having trams running through their rice little suburb. What he wanted the people to understand was this : that that system was a good one; that it vvas a perfectly fair and reasonable pro;>ositoin that the cable car should become -city property. The purchase of the Kelburn tramway at £45,000 was a- good bargain for the council. It might be asked \"hy not allow the £45,000 to go into another proposition. The Kelburn Company was paying an equivalent of 10 per cent, on that £45,000. Our ordinary tramway system did not pay 5 or 6 per cent, at the best of times. It meant this: that if the city spent £45,000 on that system, the. earning capacity was sufficient to pay interest and sinking- fund not only on that £45,000, but largo sums of money would be available to provide a syoond means of transport to that district. He maintained that under the circumstances it was the bounden duty of the ratepayers to vote in favour of that c-ystom. If we did not purchase the tramway now it would have to be purchased in course of time. Any form of purchase in the future must be based on the earning capacity of the line; and if the city provided feeders for the line and tried to purchase Ihe line in three years the company would say that the profits had increased considerably since 1023, and they would want more than £46,000. As a matter of fact, if the company were .asked the price now.it would not be less than £50,000. He\ appealed to the electors to vote for the Kelburn tram purchase, because it would be in the interests of the city.