THE RIVERS LOAN.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume I, Issue 243, 30 September 1911, Page 5

THE RIVERS LOAN.

to the fihtor. Sir,- I have just received a cutting front the “Napier Daily '[ graph,” of August lf>th. containing | a leading article on the river question, in which is quoted a portion of a letter written by me to the Puka-■ hit ratepayers before I left New Zea- > land. I am in ignorance of what < hai transpired since then, and it mat i now Be too late to alter the trend [ of events. but if not. my letter to. the Pnkahtt ratepayers holds good i in toto, and I advise them to fight . and fieri it hard against any loan for , river purposes under present condi-i tions imposed by the Act. I went i into the matter with Mr. Talbot anti } we agreed that if Pukahu were liable, for anv general loan and the rates | therefor in the same proportion to j the other ridings as was fixed for the I first vear's rates by the Central: River-. Board, then it was a fair thing that Pukahu should join in on that basis and agree to the loan for proposed works. It is monstrous; that Pukahu should be asked or expected to be responsible for twofifths of this loan. The Borough of Hastings is at present benefited by Roy’s Hill embankments—-to • which it contributed- -and will in future be benefited by further exepnditure of the river works at least as much as the greater part of the flWknhu district. Napier South and j tlic flat part of the town of Napier will surely be benefited greatly by any new works if those works be a success—yet Hastings, Napier [ South and Napier go free while Pukahu is mulcted. No. face the position fairly, and if the sffecte<l districts of the Central Rivers Board are too poor to pay their fair share of the rates for a river loan in fair proportion to benefits to be received, then join in to contribute to the scheme the whole watershed of the rivers and the catchment area —including Hastings. Napier South and the Hat portion of Napier. Let us for a minute consider: —

fl) the works done by the late Pukahu Ri'.er Board—particularly the banks above ami below Roy’s Hill and the willow planting there: (2) who were the large landowners in the Pukahu di=trict at that time and ; CI) the attitude of at least one of these owners to-dav (now that he has sold out of the Pukahu district to such a large extent in denouncing the old Pukahu Board for building those protection works at the expense of the rest of the district one wonders whether he did not inspire that leading article. With regard to (I) it is very questionable whether Roy's Hill works have not greatly facilitated the handling of the Ngaruroro River for any scheme for the Central River Board rather than made that river a menace to the district. (2) Four of the largest landowners in the Pukahu district were Messrs. G. P. Donnelly ,R. D. D. McLean, Thomas 4 Tanner, and myself. Mr. Donnelly * Las sold the whole of Maraekakaho, Mr. Tanner has sold all or nearly all of Endsleigh, and I have sold the greater part of Longlands and much of all these lands has changed hands many times since the first sales. Now all these lands were sold and bought at big prices because the buyers believed that the Roy’s Hill embankment made the lands safe from Hood from the Ngaruroro. How then can Mr. Donnelly and Mr. McLean now advocate that the people to whom they sold their lands at good prices because such lands were safe from Hoods should now l>e saddled with an additional burden equivalent to £‘l per acre on every acre of land in the Pukahu riding for purposes of protecting almost entirely land between I'ernhill and the Sea * It is perhaps unkind to ask what lands in the latter area are used and farmed by one of these gentlemen.

The concluding paragraph of the leading article to which 1 have referred suggests that perhaps only a part of the engineers’ scheme with apportionate cost may be necessary to accomplish comparative safety, but the lesson of the Napier Harbour Board loans has been too hardly and expensively brought home to ratepayers in Hawke’s Bay for them not to recognise that the wish is only father to the thought.. It is the first step that always costs. — lam. etc.. E. J. WATT. Brisbane. Sept. 2d. Iftll.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Me read with very great stir- . prise the Hon. J. D. Ormond’s reJ cent letter in your columns on the subject of the River Board Loan. When boiled down it comes to thr-s simply—that the ratepayers .to practically ordered to carry out th.'" gentleman’s behests, and thnt if they are not obedient, he will see :i..tt they are properly punished, for he will cause a heavy rate to be struck. We thought the time for that sort of thing had passed, but clearly not <•>. if the Hon. J. D. Ormond can t..iv ■ his way. May we crave xuur imiuig erne to deal .with his letter * M hv does he take it for granted that the board will do ?.* tie xv.-die- ' It must be clear to im that I > i not the confideii' c of the ratepayers, and are we tc believe that the bo.no does rov reflect that opinion it is •«ell here to remember that the board would not swallow Mr. Or morid’s whole scheme, and that Le {Ji.t the report id the rntito < i , auopt rd by a major:”, of one on’y and then on the understanding that that adoption of the report d’d not com injl any hod’.. Ti.> ti r:-, nioHiol loan proposal vv a - c.i-rbd ,t ir ' jority of two: do. . Mr. Ormond shier that this justifies h:m ::i a ■ stiming that a lia-y r.ir< w ” >< struck 1 He is more l.k- ■■ t.> h . nece~s.xT’. t*> g’> ».t>’k to r - deterrn ill It ion to 'A.i’l. i:.' i..imt- of the busif.es.. ill .ur>mru- to limit tht d” I faction with the prop..,-ds to Pu kahu ratepayers, but he must know that the dissatisfaction is vvt.i.•-

spread. We have spoken to numbers of ratepayers in all the wards, and the loan proposals have- been condemned by every one of them ; they think as we do that the monev would be wasted under the pre sent administration. Even' ratepayer resents the idea of being fon t d into such heavy expenditure expenditure that confessi <lly aims at most at pn venting small floods. Let ratepayers mark that the engineers' scheme (X--pressly say< that it will not prevent big floods it will only mip in the case of small floods. Now every settler in the district knows what an annoyarye and incoiivr-r.ience small Hoods are. but such Hoods are not an unmixed evil. The land subject to them is rated correspondingly low - nowadays no stock is lost in such floods, and the land derives material benefit very often from the silt. But the big flood—which the engineers will not tackle—will in one night undo all the work done for the £25.<JOU. so that the money :.s absolutely money thrown away, and the district is saddled with a loan for which there to show for the money when such a may ask why we should be asked to vote for such expenditure 1 Does Mr. Ormond suggest that if there be a flood like the ’93 flood or the '97 flood—or even lesser ones —that the £25.000 spent as he wants it spent will do a ha’porth of good to the district or that there will he any thing is not a tittle to show ; we surely flood subsides ' When that event happens, no doubt Mr. Ormond will be to the f< re again asking for another £2s.t»<>u from the district as a present to the next flood that comes along. It lias been suggested that if the loan be carried, a farthing rate will be sufficient, but the originator of that could hardly have worked the sum out. If the loan be carried, the idea is to spend the money in twe vears: a farthing rate will produce £<2po. Take £ftw for office and simdrv expenses. interest on the loan will cat up another £lOOO. leaving £2OO to do the work of the board. Every ratepayer who will consider this will see that another lean would then be in sight, and tn fact loans would be unending. Wr think it hardly necessary to refer to Mr. Ormond s threat to the ratepayers of Pukahu ; they may be trusted to guage what is best in their own interests. They probably think it would have been much betlei if the accident to which he attributes the omission < f differentia! rating from the Act had not occurred, anti thev are probably not so sine as he seems to be that success will attend his efforts to undo that accident. In conchisicn. we appeal to all ratepayers to record their vote against the loan.—We are. etc., THOS. TALBOT. W. BRIDGMAN'. CEO. PC RYES. HI GH CAMPBELL. JAMES C. WATTS. C. HALDANE (Clive). J. BRIDGEMAN (Knrainu).

TO THE F.OITOR. Sir,- The Pukahu settlers after being once beguiled by plausible assurances of a differential rati*, are loth to accept any further assurance, official or otherwise, that their interests .are to lie conserved until the Act .is amended, and they are quite within their rights in asking that the loan proposals be held over until such time as the differential principle be secured to them by Act of Parliament. The “indirect benefits to Pukahu” not being so very apparent, let those that call the tune, pay the piper. Might 1 ask as a matter of curiosity what contribution the town of Hastings makes to the finances of the Central Rivers Board, in return for the benefits which she shares with Pukahu As we have Mr. Ormond's word that

should the loan be rejected, he will wash his hands of the board’s businesshis threat of a maximum rate does not trouble ns greatly lor we do not doubt that the gentleman is a man of his word.--1 am. etc., G. N. HORN. Hastings. Sept. 30, 1911.

£25.01X1 LOAN.