MUNICIPAL REFORM.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 11619, 5 April 1901, Page 3

MUNICIPAL REFORM.

TO THE EDITOR. ' Sir,—Now that the election for new councillors is fast approaching, I think we should be assured that the gentlemen selected should be progressive men, who will look at matters from a broad and comprehensive point of view It is' significant to read of the municipalities in other centres going in for large loans for tramways, drainago, etc., while in .Auckland everything .is done in a i>arrow, pettifogging spirit, and if reforms are advocated tho reformers are branded as men who . want 'a " boo-3W and burst" policy initiated. These men cannot see beyond their noses, and consequently the word " loan" for public works in synonymous in their minds with increased rating, and the poor ratepayer, who is paying 2s in the £, is going to be " crushed again." ' I would ask these groaning rate'payers how about the rentpayera. In'many cases those who do not pay rates as propertyowners pay more than these property-owners do in water, nightsoil, and removal of refuse. In proportion to the ratable value of their properties, some are to-day paying 2s 6d and more in the £. Beyond this, when we realise that over £17,000 per annum is received from water consumers, and a large portion of this revenue goes to pay the interest on consolidated loans for public works expenditure, it will be seen at once that rentpayers are paying a share of the improvements of the city, and consequently should have a very largo say with regard to the welfare of the city in which they reside. We must face a large expenditure for water supply and drainage. The first must be from a different source than where money is being frittered away at present, and the latter must bo carried out, not in £1700 or £1800 jobs, but every house in the city and suburbs mast be, directly connected. with sewers and sewage works. The present revenue from water supply, if we eliminate cost of pumping, 's ample to provide interest on a scheme of £200,000'0r £250,000, and if a-pound per house on an average is levied, as at present, but more equitably and justly, through Auckland and her suburbs, there is ample to pay interest for a comprehensive drainage scheme and drainage works, without increasing the rates for either work.

I think all broad-minded men' will agree that thuo should be no arbitrary lines laid down as • boundaries for water or drainage, and that either the city and loca? boroughs should unite to carry out these two essentials to a civilised community, jointly, by appointing a committee to do so, or, better still, apply for the requisite powers from Parliament, with a provision for the election of a Board of Commissioners, on whom the responsibility of carrying out these important works should rest, and the municipal bodies could carry out the other works appertaining to them. If a united scheme of this kind were initiated, first-class men would consent to stand for a board to carry out these works under the supervision of a competent man, with the latest municipal experience, to be selected by the commissioners.—l am, etc., P. E. Cheat,.