ST. CLAIR ESPLANADE.

Evening Star, Issue 14548, 24 April 1911, Page 2

ST. CLAIR ESPLANADE.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —"Another Ratepayer" endeavors to justify the recent purchaso, so freely criticised, but ho makes no headway. Although it has been tho practice to permit councillors to exercise a certain amount of |»atronage by entrusting them with tho negotiations for the purchase of land required by the Council, this is entirely wrong, and has ou occasions proved a costly method of acquisition. Cortadnly no councillor who is seeking tho votes of ratepayers should allow himself to be placed in the position of bargaining with city funds for tho purchase of land whose voto is being canvassed either by himself or his Committoe. One precaution would bo to obtain a valuation from tho city valuers (one of the latter has been valuing these very properties for over twenty years). This was not done. It has been publicly stated that £I,OOO too much was paid. This figure may bo a littlo too £igh, but ce'rtainly an excessive eum was paid, and the land was purchased against the advic© of the expert adviser of the Council (the manager of the trams). It would be highly advantageous to have a searching inquiry into all tho facts connected with this purchase, held before an impartial tribunal. Cr Burnett, it is true, voted against the purchase, and he was perfectly right in doing so. Had he not done so ho would have forfeited his claim to the support of a number of ratepayers, many of them residents at St. Clair. There is unanimity on the point that the City should expend money on developing the sea front at St. Ciair, and it is wise and prudent to do so, but the sum available ie not large, and already over £2,000 has been practically wasted. Let us calmly and deliberately consider, in spending the balauce, what is best for the City as a whole. If we do not adopt this latter couise we shall be •eft with a scrap heap of reinferced con"rete and a numy-go-round to represent £6,000! In conclusion, allow me to remind your readers that it is the surf-bathers who twve galvanised the City Council into activity. Until their advert' St. Clair was held ro-

rnarkablv cheep. I have heard of no suggestion "that surf-bathers should bo specially catered for, and yet they are largely responsible for trio increased traffic on the trams. —I ahi, etc, Still Another Ratepayer. April 24. THE CITY FINANCES. TO THB BDITOa. Sir,—l should like to be allowed to add a few comment* to the letter of Mr W. D. Stewart in your issue of Saturday last, dealing with Mr Small's criticism on our financial position. In tho first place, we have the highly satisfactory profit of approximately £23,000 made by our trading departments during the past year,, and this after deducting all charges for interest on their respective loam and also depreciation. This £23,000 has been disposed of as follows :-Contnbutaons to nimricipal fund, £7,600; sinking fund, £6 000- tramways duplication extension and building fund, £9,000; and other extensions which I have not the exact figures for. Surely Cr Small does not think that the above valuable assets are lost to the City. Mr Small's candidature for Leith Ward will, it is to be hoped, meet with deserved success, and, if so, the Council will then have the value of his recognised ability, and the close acquaintance he will thus have with the City a undertakings may perhaps make him less pessimistic—l am, etc., V f<Tw.,„ John M Donald. April 24.