GREATER AUCKLAND.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 16317, 25 August 1916, Page 7

GREATER AUCKLAND.

THE MOVEMENT IN EPSOM. APPEAL TO RATEPAYERS. For* members of the Epsom Road Board— Messrs. H. Frost, chairman, T. Fyne, 0. Hemus, and H. E. Yaile—have issued a circular to the ratepayers of the district, setting forth reasons why, in their judgment, it would be in the best interests of Epsom to join the city. " After very careful consideration," says the circular, "your board is of opinion that it would be in the best interests of the district to join the city. A letter was forwarded to the Mayor and councillors of Auckland suggesting that, subject to the consent of the Epsom ratepayers, amalgamation should he effected on a basis of equal rating. To that proposal the council has agreed. *

Comparison as to Sates. " Some ratepayers seem to have .been under the impression that our rates are lower than those of the city, but a few moments' consideration will prove this to be erroneous. The Epsom rates are 2 l-6d in the £ on the capital value, and the city rates are 3s 6d in the £ on the annual value. The annual value is arrived at by deducting 20 per cent, from the gross rent actually being paid, or— property which is not rented— per cent. of the capital value. As most of the property in Epsoih is not rented, the latter basis would generally be taken. As an example, take a property worth £100. In Epsom at the existing rate of 2 l-6d the rates would be 18s annually. In the city 5 per cent, on the capital value would be £5, and 3s 6d in the £ would mean 17s 6d annually. Therefore, the Epsom rates are 6d per cent, higher than in the city. The simplest method is for every ratepayer to compare his rate demand with the city basis of 3s 6d in the £ on 5 per cent, of his capital value. He will then find that his rates are 3s 7d, as against the city's 3s 6d. "As to water, the city water-rate between an annual value of £12 10s and £100 per annum is 2£ per cent., with an addition of 15s per annum for a patent W.C., the minimum charge being 10s per annum for a dwelling as against £1 12s in Epsom. In nearly every case this will be found to be to the advantage of the Epsom ratepayer. Amalgamation would also ensure the continuity of the city supply." Other Advantages.

With regard to fire protection the circular states: — "It is not to be supposed that our volunteer fire brigade with its imperfect appliances can adequately cope with a serious outbreak of fire. If we join the city, the Fire Board would afford lis the same protection as it now gives the city, and would _ bring the fireplugs, pressure, and other items up to the city standard. This would be an incalculable benefit, and we might also look forward to a reduction in insurance premiums." It is pointed out that, with the slender resources at its disposal, the board is unable to deal effectively with the most important matter of storm water, as a very comprehensive scheme is necessary to overcome the trouble. On other points it is urged that, so long as Manukau Road is under the control of so many local bodies, no satisfactory scheme for its permanent construction and maintenance can be undertaken. As to other streets, unless the rates are largely increased and a proper road-making plant is secured, it is impossible to put them in better condition. Sewage defects can be more easily remedied if the drainage system is under the control of the city; at present difaiculties exist which are a constant annoyance. In regard to lighting, notwithstanding the extra lamps recently erected, many streets are very dark, and use would probably be made by the city of the electric current, which now passes through the district, for streetlighting purposes. The cost of administration is higher in Epsom than in the city, and, besides this, the board has to payheavily for engineering and other expert assistance, whereas in the city well-trained officers are always available without extra payment. Many other advantages might, says the circular, be mentioned, but it 13 certain that road board government for a modern suburb such as Epsom should be is out of date, and that the general interests are not best catered for under the fast-dis-appearing system of small local bodies.