ONLY ONE WAY

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 140, 10 December 1931, Page 8

ONLY ONE WAY

The City Council debate on tramway revenue revealed curious inconsistency on the part of some members. The Labour councillors were not inconsistent. It is the policy of their party that services of all kinds should be given to the people at the expense of ratepayers and taxpayers. But other councillors who opposed the increase in the universal fare were returned to the Council pledged to reduce rates. Up to the present all that the Council has done in this direction has been at the expense of the Electricity Department and through the reduction of the Hospital rale. Now these rate-reducing councillors would put a new burden on the rates, by making ratepayers responsible for a loss on a trading department. The only excuse we can see for this inconsistency is that the councillors taking this course foolishly pledged themselves to maintain the universal fare. They did this, as we pointed out at the time, without considering what conditions would have to be faced to keep that pledge. We do- not like an increase in the universal fare; but unpleasant as it may be it is preferable to the alternatives that have so far been presented. The strongest arguments advanced against the increase are: (1) That the financial difficulty,is temporary and the loss may be borne for the lime by the rates; (2) that the Council has a moral obligation to residents in distant suburbs not to increase charges; (3) that the deficit is to be made good at the expense of one section of the community. If the Tramways Department had reserve funds for equalising charges it would be sound policy to draw upon them now; but the Mayor's statement (as we interpret it) was that there were no funds that could be touched. We would, however, be interested in a statement showing to what extent, if any, tramway funds have been applied to special purposes. If there has been such application, it is reasonable now that general revenue should assist tramway revenue to an equal extent in an emergency. But on the information given by the Mayor we cannot see" that such temporary measures would suffice. The tramway

loss has been steadily growing greater, and it is to prevent that drift llial (lie Council is now bound lo take action, it has held its hand long enough in the hope of recovery. The second argument, that the Council has a moral obligation to mainlain the present fares, is quite unsound. We are not aware lhat the Council in introducing the universal fare gave a pledge that it would never be altered. Even if the Council of the time did so, it went further than its powers, for no Council has authority to bind its successors in office on general policy. Concession of such authority would make municipal government an absurd farce. To say that people went lo the distant suburbs under the inducement of the low fare is only partly true. As Councillor Bennett pointed out, they had low rales and low land values. Has the Council considered itself bound lo maintain these advantages? Of course it has not. It has raised valuations and it has raised rates. This moral obligation argument fails completely when it is applied to the city as a whole. What redress, for example, has the ratepayer of the city who bought a business section ten years ago, being partly induced to do so because the rate liability was, say, £200, and now finds that liability £300 or more? The final argument that it is unfair to charge a section of the community to make good the deficit is wholly untenable under the circumstances. These circumstances are: When the universal fare was introduced one section {the long-distance riders) was given a disproportionate benefit. One-section and two-section travellers did not have, equal treatment—nor did the ratepayers. That concession is mainly responsible for the present loss. It would be grossly unfair to maintain the concession at the expense of the people to whom nothing was given. For years shortdistance travellers have been paying part of the cost of carrying longdistance riders. They will continue that help; but ratepayers will not be compelled to grant a new subsidy. The inequality of the maintenance of the 3s concession under existing conditions was illustrated by the proposal of one of the opponents of an increase. He suggested that bus operations should cease. In other words, bus-served residents should be deprived of everything. Already, owing to the Council method of presenting the accounts, bus-users are charged with a greater loss than is really due, and to discontinue the services completely would be penalising one section with a vengeance. Considering all circumstances and all other courses so far presented, we are convinced that the Council has adopted the only sound method. It is regrettable that the decision, owing to the foolish pledges given by some councillors, has been made by a bare majority, with one councillor absent. This will make it harder for the advocates of sound finance.