SOPHISTRY OR SENSE?

Evening Post, Volume CXVII, Issue 75, 29 March 1934, Page 8

SOPHISTRY OR SENSE?

We do not wish to copy the rather hysterical tone of the Wellington Ratepayers' Association iir its criticism of the City Council and "The Post." The use of terms such as /'commercial immorality" and "piracy" is quite unwarranted, and will not help the Ratepayers' Association. On the contrary it must turn public opinion against the association. What has the council done? It has given an endorsement of the Mayor's view that, as the council has a little money to spare after paying for urgently essential works, there should be a moderate expansion of ' municipal activity. Other essential works should be undertaken to provide employment for 'men who were dismissed from the council's service. "The Post," while acknowledging that ratepayers should have relief, and that, when possible, the lower-paid employees should have the wages-cuts in part restored, agrees that the most urgent need of the present time is to return more men to normal employment. This is a community responsibility, and will be for the community's benefit. In this we see no suggestion of improper expenditure such as the Ratepayers' Association insinuates. The combined sophistry of Mayors, councillors, and "The Post" cannot, states the association, disprove this fact, that the money is the ratepayers and must be use.d for the purpose for which the law allows the demand to be made, and that only. If the council proposed to spend money illegally that could be stopped, but there is no such proposal. The expenditure is legal arid morally justifiable. . New Zealand today has some 60,000 to 70,00Ci;,without regular employment. The national Government is taking the lead in endeavouring to reinstate these men. But the Government must have the co-operation of local bodies and private citizens in a work which is for the. benefit of all. The stronger local bodies, such as the Wellington' City Council, must riot evade their duty, which is to provide as much work as their means and the opportunities for economic employment allow. If it were proposed to raise new rates and spend the money on unnecessary works, the case would be different. But as it is municipal activity has been cut down severely, and works which would be of advantage to the city have not been undertaken. It is now proposed that some of these works should be put in hand, for the city benefit, for the relief of the unemployed, and to encourage private persons to do the same. The gain to business through even a partial restoration of confidence will be immense, apart from the humanity of giving a chance to men who have been without hope for over two years. The cost will riot be such as to raise an insuperable obstacle. The most that the council could do in reducing rates would not amount to 5' per cent. "There, are hundreds of ratepayers who pay £30, £50, and £60, per annum in rates to whoiri a reduction in rates would be of considerable help," states the Ratepayers' Association. A £50 ratepayriieht means that the ratepayer has a property of a capital value ranging from £5000 to £8000. Is it too much to ask such a man to forgo in the meantime a rate-reduction of E £2 10s? If, there are hundreds of ratepayers to whom reduction would mean a few pounds, there are thousands to whom it would be only a few shillings. It is humanity and good business to postpone this reduction if' by wise use of the surplus the council can do a little to accelerate recovery. In its rTlind zeal for rate-reduction the Ratepayers' Association is losing its sense of proportion.