Re Amalgamation and Misleading Statements.

Gisborne Times, Volume V, Issue 138, 21 June 1901, Page 3

Re Amalgamation and Misleading Statements.

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —I quite agree with your remarks iu your leading article of'yesterday’s issue, that if Mr Witty's remarks make at the ratepayers’ meeting on the previous night were correct, that the capital value of the borough had decreased during the last three years by something over XISOOO there must be something radically wrong, and that it is bard to accept such a statement as representing the true state of affairs in the borough. The inference that you appear to have drawn from Mr Witty’s remarks, and no doubt tho public would also draw, was that the borough rates are being collected on a lower basis to-day than they were three years ago, and that certainly was what Mr Witty wanted the meeting to believe when he made the remarks. I pointed out to the meeting that the borough takes no notice of the capital value, but only rate on the annual rental value. This must surely be known to Mr Witty without being told. Now, upon examining tho borough rate books I find the position to be absolutely the reverse to what Mr Witty would have us believe, and is as follows: In 1899, annual ratable value was £26,484 In 1900, „ „ £28,557 In 1901, „ „ £33,100 These are the actual figures upon which the borough rates have been struck, after deducting certain properties situate in. the borough which are not subject to rating, and you will see that instead of the borough values decreasing in tho last three years they have substantially increased. Besides this, I learn there has been no now valuation made of the borough’s capital value since about the end of 1897. This

must surely have been known to Mr Witty, and it is all tho moro 'difficult to know why he made tho statement ? Now, while correcting Mr Witty’s misleading statement upon this head, I would like to correct his statement upon another head also, which I learn ho has beon very activo in circulating among tho ratepayers, for what reason I know not, to the effect that if tho borough boundaries arc extondod so as to include parts of Kaiti and Whataupoko, that ho will claim double rates on bohalf of the Harbor Board from the oxtended area, as he now does for tho borough as it was constituted prior to the Harbor Act of 1884. I think it is indeed fortunate that we have to take our Acts of Parliament as law, and not the wish or desire of tho secretary of any harbor board, and if tho Acts of Parliament arc to provail (which I beliovo they do) over Mr Witty, then it would seem ho is as clearly wrong under this head as he is under tho preceding one. I exceedingly regrot that a gentleman holding the important public position as Secretary of the Harbor Board as Mr Witty does, should deliberately mako such misleading statements as he has done in theso instances, and I think wc might fairly expect, that ho should know what ho is talking about, and not bo party to misleading tho public upon important questions of this kind, and at this junction goodness knows it is bad enough to have to meet the orroneous statements of laymen without having to moot such statements as theso by an official porson. Now, regarding Mr Stafford's comparison of a property owned by me in Whataupoko, situated against the hills, and valued at 4)315, and one owned by him of similar value in Gisborno, I find ho is comparing his socticn in Gladstone road upon which his shop and a blacksmith’s shop aro situated, which is rated by tho borough as upon an annual valuo of £46, which shows his property to bo worth between 41600 and .£7OO. A very different value Mr Stafford would have us believe at tho meeting, and it is quito unfair and misleading for Mr Stafford to have used such an illustration, especially seeing he did not state the annual value tho borough rated him upon. When I asked him to do so at tho meeting regarding tho other illustration, Mr Stafford gave, as ho mentioned, no particulars or names. I am unable to vorify it. Thoro is still another mattor I would

liko to mako cloar regarding this quostion raised by Mr Sievwright’s letter of tho 17th inst., when he states wo will havo to pay an annual chargo of 4)5,500, being interest at 4£ per cent., and 1 per cent, sinking fund, at —say, 4)100,000 for tho water and drainage scheme. Now, by the Government Loans to Local Bodies Act, 1899, if we tako tho monoy for 41 years, wo would only havo to pay 34 per cent, interest, and £ per cent, sinking fund, which would bo annual charge of 4)4,000, instead of 4)5,500, and this spread over the proposed amalgamated districts would represent a rate of about Is 9d, instead of 3s 5d as suggested by Mr Sievwright on tho borough as it now stands. I beliove Mr Sievwright wroto what ho did in good faith, but was overlooking tho Act of 1899. In making these corrections, I do so in order that your rcadors can fairly weigh this important question of amalgamation, without boing unfairly swayed against it. —I am, etc., W. Douglas Lys.var.