CORRESPONDENTS' VIEWS

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 131, 30 November 1926, Page 10

CORRESPONDENTS' VIEWS

(To the Editor.) Sir, —There has been quite a procession of correspondence upon this subject, headed by Councillor Holmes with another of our councillors (Mr. Edilson) bringing up in the rear. Their letters deal mainly with reasons why the buses should not be bought. Has it not occurred to them that there are many good reasons the other way? At ,the public meeting last' Thursday night the Mayor made it abundantly clear that even with the exercise of the greatest prudence and economy the ferry service could only just struggle along, making no headway whatever. This is principally due to the natural increase of traffic being absorbed by the bus service. There appears no prospect of arresting this drift, and its effect on the ferry .service will become more marked as additional buses are put on the road. The borough simply cannot allow this to continue if there is a possible method of counteracting it. The acquisition of the bus servico provides this method, as it would give the borough control over all means of transport to the district. "What they would lose on the swings (hey would gain oji the round-abouts." An extremely important auxiliary service is the "feeding" of the boats on the Eastbourne side. This is at present carried out under an arrangement between the council and the present bus owners, but there is no guarantee of its continuity, and in the event of it falling through the borough would bo obliged to buy and run two buses, employ drivers, maintain a garage, and generally suffer 011 a minor scale all the disabilities contingent to a larger service. This auxiliary service, although absolutely indispensable, would be very unprofitable, because the buses could not bo employed for any other purpose. The attitude of Councillor Edilson is exceedingly puzzling. We understand that he voted in council for the proposal to buy the buses. Ho was also present on the platform at the public meeting last Thursday when the Mayor informed us that the council were unanimously in favour of the proposal. At that meeting questions and objections were invited, and at that meeting Councillor Edilson had ample opportunity to place- his objections before the right people, namely the ratepayers, but he apparently preferred to broadcast them through the "Evening Post" with the whole of Wellington "listening in." Possibly the views expressed by him only took shape on Saturday night; one would think so, judging by the quality of them. His proposal to sell or tie-up the boats is sheerest nonsense. He should know as a councillor better than most people, that a bus service capable of handling the passengers who travel daily on the present ferry service is quite out of the question. —I am, etc., BE LOYAL. 30lh November.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —Your correspondent, Councillor Holmes, places his ideas and objections to the Eastbourne Council's proposed entry into motor-bus business. He assumes that the ratepayers of Eastbourne jyil(

have to be rated to make up losses each year. He has definitely come to the conclusion that there will be a loss. Who is his informant as regards loss? The population to be catered for is not only Eastbourne; it is Wellington and Bays as well. The present time-fable con bo maintained; if not, a better one than exists at present can he put in operation with less expense. In reference to securing a fullyqualified manager this is unnecessary. In Mr. Duncan, the assistant to Mr. Menzies, the borough has a servant well up in road transport. The present proprietors in wanting to sell out realise fully that the business has grown beyond their conception, and it will still grow. The Mayor gave a fairly comprehensive outline of the buses in general, and it does not take one long to consider that it is far better to secure the buses in connection with the boats than have private enterprise creep in, with detrimental results to the finance of the borough, as it assuredly will. The ratepayers of Eastbourne would be well advised to take notice of their Mayor and vote for the buses'. If they take Councillor Holmcs's fide, well they will have to pay the piper and be lated a bit more than at present. —I am, etc., OPPORTUNITY. Another correspondent ("Chartered' Secretary") also comments on "the soundness and wisdom of the proposed loan." The writer states: "While I have the greatest respect for Councillor Edilson's business acumen as a successful hotel proprietor, it is a inatten of regret that he remained on the platform miito instead of expressing his views at the public meeting called for tho express purpose of discussing the proposal. Both gentlemen in questioning the financial statement read out by the Mayor appear to have overlooked the fact that the statement of profit and loss was prepared by a firm of chartered accountants of tho very highest standing in tho Dominion. Moreover, the chartered accountants certified that charging depreciation of 22A per cent, and all other outgoings, the present proprietors of the bus service had made a net profit of over £1900, despite the fact that for a large part of the period under review only three buses were in operation. The ability and capacity of the present administrative officers of the council to manage a bus service has been questioned, but tho statement of tho present finances of - the borough, as outlined by the Mayor, prove conclusively that they have undoubted executive and financial capacity. Surely no reasonable business man would suggest that the officers of th" council could not display equally successful management as the present proprietors who have had no previous business experience and who have made a succes of the venture despite their inexperience. As to the reason for the present proprietors' willingness vo sell their plant as a going concern, m;iy I suggest that they realise the ■ council have the right to take over the service compulsorily under the new Act, and as the price offered is a fair one,, they wish to avoid tho heavy expense- and endless delay consequent upon the settlement of a price by arbitration. "The fact that a previous council made an error of judgment in the purchase of> one of the ferry steamers should not be allowed to prejudice the only solution that will bear invistiga tion to relieve ratepayers of part at ■least of the ferry rate. No other alternative constructive proposal has been put forward to solve the competition that at present is drawing the more lucrative business from the ferry system, and the present loan proposal offers the only way out to the, Eastbourne Borough Council. The eliminations of boats that no not pay and the substitution of a frequent bus service with its reduced cost of running and overhead charges is unanswerable in tho benefits that will accrue to ratepayers. After giving- thb* matter considered thought I am driven to the conclusion that the loan proposals giving the couircil control of the whole of the transport to tho city and thus allowing them to correlate the buses and boats is not only sound in principle but it is also the only solution of the ferry problem that is giving concern, to all resident ratepayers." •