Readers Write

Northern Advocate, 19 December 1938, Page 6

Readers Write

I lam watching with keen interest j the coming of social security in this | country. On the one hand we have people saying that the doctors will not co-oper-ate, and yet we find the Government going ahead steadily with its plans. Is it a case of bluff on both sides? I wonder.— “WATCHER.” The present system of settling farmers on the land is a total failure. Proof of this is the nine millions sterling that the Labour Government’s, mortgage adjustment legislation jacked off the farmer’s neck, with probably an o t her nine millions sterling that slipped off before it came to the court. I don't think half of the farmers have yet got on to the first nnjg of the ladder for their farm financing operations. I would appeal to all who read these few lines to urge the Government, when deciding on their land; policy in the coming “New Deal” not 1 to make any more new farms untiL the present occupied farms are pro- ! ducing to their normal producing capacity.

SOCIAL SECURITY■

LAND SETTLE. MENT.

Here are more arguments, beginning with quoting the very old axiom, “He is a good general who consolidates the ground he has won before he attempts to win more.” (1.) Farms in Northland are at presj ent not producing to half normal capacity. (2.) If the same amount of labour and money (or considerably less) were spent on an already occupied farm as it would take to break in a new one, we would get 50 per cent, more produce in 50 per cent, less time. (3.) Something must soon be done with a lot of our farms that are not half-worked, with the biggest portion sowing weeds for the next generation. (4.) What is the use of breaking in more farms, while farms in occupataion are already going back to weeds? The new land is in native bush, scrub, swamp, or blackberry and gorse, and can take no further harm at present. (5.) We could employ just as many men cleaning up the present occupied farms as we could building new ones, and, as well, young men could get : better farming experience looking at the progress and mistakes we have made.

(6.) We want a Lee on the land. '

I cannot see a sensible farmer, who has a half-broken-in farm not offering it to the Government at its present productive value, at the price he is paying for money today, and accepting the farm back on ia lease, fully improved, at its productive value, at, say, a money value at 1£ per cent. This, in my opinion, would be a good proposition for the farmer and the country. , What about trying it?— JOHN S. McBREEN, Marua.

The Mayor and Councillors have a cherished hope that the rubbish dump must go as near the centre of the town as possible. In their eyes they see a hill that can be used conveniently as a covering for rubbish. At one end of Okara there is a septic tank, and the council want a rubbish tip at the other end. J

SITE OF RUBBISH DUMP.

Mr Worley, the engineer, was horrified at the road to Kioreroa being formed outside the tank, and asked the council to shift the locality of the road. If Mr Worley, and the then health inspector, had taken my advice the tank would have been outside the road. Another site the borough council had been advised to take by the Harbour Board engineer was up the Limeburners’ ' Creek, it would have been out of sight of all residences in the borough, and only a few minutes’ further run by motor, where filling or covering earth was handy and plenty of it. There is another site for the rubbish tip equally as good below the Limeburners’ bridge, towards the main channel of the river. It could be used right away for filling or covering spoil is there, pumped out from the river. Traffic to the dump would go down the Port Road, a road that the council told the ratepayers was

made cheaply. That ro'ad has been taken over by j the council as far as Limeburners’ ■ bridge, and is about 600 yards longer | than would have been necessary had | the Borough Council made the road | where it was town-planned to go. | Then the read would have been to the borough boundary, and I would like the ratepayers to remember that, as it means a lot of extra expense in upkeep in the future. The spoil dredged out of the river would be excellent for covering rubbish, easily handled, as it is gravel and gritty, with plenty of shell in it. It is easily shifted and. when more was wanted, could be dredged out of the river as there are thousands of yards to shift, and the removal would improve that bend in the

river. This site is out of the borough, and would annoy no one, either as a dumping ground, or even if a nuisance were created. Before finalising their present deal with the Harbour Board, the council should seriously consider my proposal—W, A. HOEY.