LOAN PROPOSALS

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 130, 29 November 1926, Page 11

LOAN PROPOSALS

-4 BUSES FOR EASTBOURNE (To tho Editor.) Sir,—l read with . interest Councillor Holmes's letter in yourl issue of Saturday, and I wish to refer particularly to two points he mentions. First, the insufficient information in the possession of ratepayers to enable them to exercise an intelligent vote in connection with the proposal of the Borough Council to take over the buses at present on the road. I am in favour,of buses—ptenty of them—and always have been, but I was not by any means convinced by the Mayor last Thursday evening that tho borough, especially in its straitened financial position, should have control over them.

In his ordinary business affairs, before a man makes a serious investment he very carefully considers all the pros and cons of the matter. I ask very definitely were all the pros and cons regarding the proposed investment in buses placed before the ratepayers last Thursday evening. I paid the closest attention to the Mayor right through his speech, which was divided into three parts, viz.: (1) The district fund; (2) ferry matters; (3) bus proposals. Any one of those matters would provide a full evening's discussion. Not, however, till a late hour, too late for proper discussion, was the serious question of committing the borough to a new venture dealt with. I went to-the meeting anticipating the fullest information, but I came away very uncertain about the wisdom of the Mayor's proposals.

I have since been thinking hard, and would like to know from the Mayor, among other things,.what rate.of interest we are to pay on the loan. I understand it is the high rate of 6% per cent. Also what method of management we arc to have, and what it Will cost. This brings me to the second important point Councillor Holmes raises in his letter, and that is, why the present company, who, we are told, have made such excellent profits, desire to sell! The Mayor's answer to this question was that the present company would not be able to secure a renewal of license next year. Surely he does not think such an answer can be regarded as complete and be taken seriously.

Before ratepayers go to the poll next Wednesday I sincerely hope they will seriously consider such matters as: (a) Appointment and salary of manager; (b) number of employees and rates of pay; .(c) hours' and overtime; (d) upkeep and future purchases of buses; (c) fares and time-tables; (f) repayment of loan; (g) effect on rates; (h) high rate of interest; (i) depreciation; (j) garages; (k) repairs to present buses; (I),numerous other details. ....

It is a most serious matter for ratepajKrs in a borough with such heavy liabilities as we have to vote for a further big loan,'when so little is known on the points above enumerated, and I for one cannot, under such conditions, possibly support the. proposal.^-I am, etc.,

RESIDENT RATEPAYER.

(To tha Editor.)

Sir,—As one of the Eastbourne ratepayers I wish to ' extend my congratulations to Councillor Holmes for his very sensible letter in the "Evening Post" of Saturday. Even if it be allowed that the present proprietors are making the service pay, it Beems very unlikely that the council would attain similar results. At present the owners work very long hours, and do most if not all of their own repairs; they- are in and out with nearly every trip, and from personal attention see that there is no waste and no incivility. If the council took over the service it would be up against union hours and pay, and carelessness would creep in very soon, turning profit into loss. Depreciation is deceptive, and generally very much more than is usually allowed, and the present buses have not been long enough on the road to reach a true estimate, as depreciation is cumulative year by year. The bus service is necessary for intermediate bays, Kaiwarra, Petone, etc., but much of this is not served by the boats and does not interfere with the public gravelling on the boats. Each has its advantages, and if the council, instead of grasping after the buses, would leave them to private enterprise, it could confine itself to efforts to make the boats pay. The buses pick up passengers all along the Eastbourne main road, at their homos, and put them right into town. If the boats had buses properly feeding them and delivering passengers at a through rate they would get' many of the bus passengers—but besides the steamer a very inferior bus service makes an extra charge, bringing the fare up to that of the through bus, with less quality service. I regret that the Eastbourne Council seems to muddle everything it undertakes, and I feel certain that if the bus service be purchased we poor ratepayers will soon be saddled with increased rates. Consider well before voting for purchase. I am sure that if the buses were such a good proposition the proprietors, and those behind them, would not be so anxious to sell. Our rates are high enough already for what we get.—l am, etc.,

RATEPAYER,

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—lt is to be hoped that the ratepayers'of Eastbourne will not be apathetic with reference to the poll on Wednesday next to authorise a loan for the purchase of buses. If it is true that the buses have caused the ferry deficiency, then running them by the council will not mend matters. Those who live en route (as many do., and those who dislike the harbour trip will still use tho buses. If they are taken off to force people into the ferry service, who is goin? to pay interest on the purchase money? The Eastbourne borough has already acquired an expensive white elephant for its ferry business, with the consequence that, rates for ferry deficit exceed the ordinary rates, they certainly did in my case. . A bus service run on the same lines can only lead to disaster, and —further rates. The principal reason for the,falling off in steamer traffic is the uncertain weather, which has seriously interfered with holiday and tripper passengers. Ratepayers should realise that the proposal to run a municipal bus service will not send the present bus passengers on to the ferry boats. Then, why risk further losses by acquiring the buses,:' which will certainly not pay under council control? The whole proposal appears to lack business foresight. How many of us would look upon it as a payable proposition were we dealing with our own money, and not that o£ the community? It is a panic proposal, and should bo. turned down. —I am, etc., • . : RATEPAYER.

(To the Editor.) Shy—l thought I was the only councillor who was against the proposed pur--chase by the .Eastbourne. Borough Council of the buses now run by private owners. We are how in possession of a fleet of two boats and a liner. Reading "The Post" on-Saturday night, I am pleased to see another of our councillors, namely, Councillor Holmes, against the proposition. My objections are that we, as a small borough, have been in the past and are as yet too enterprising. Instead of paying little or practically no rates, we are paying dearly for our past mistakes. Now we are asked to go in for another of our beloved experiments. If the buses do not pay, we. will have to find rates. for them, new rates for the liquidation of our overdraft, and the repayment of the Pearce's property. XV". are asked to supply the adjoining bays with an "adequate" bus service for which we are to pay the rates. We don't want that. Considering the time, the worry, the anxiety, and the responsibility the present owners have _had since they purchased the first bus, 'they have made little out of them. 'The council's best brains and our very efficient and capable executive will not be able- to do as well. In fact, we stand to lose a substantial amount per year. At present the owners have no award to work under, but that is coming in the near future. The present owners did all their .own minor repairs nud probably larger ones, too, but the council will have to. have everything done in style, and pay for everything, either through . a larger staff or by overtime, preferably the latter.

Why should we supply buses for the Hutt County Council? Let them do that for us. If the Eastbourne residents don't like thq boats, let them do what they like, and let some other body carry the responsibility, and.let us tie up, sell privately, or by auction any boat or boats that are not' wanted. Admitted we will still have

the responsibility of interest, etc., but at least we shall not have to pay out on additional staff, repairs, overhauls, insurances, and everything else pertaining to a ship or ships. My advice to the ratepayers of Eastbourne is to sell the boats first, and buy buses next. —I am, etc., SIMON EDILSON. Eastbourne.