Untitled

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18032, 4 September 1920, Page 6

Dealing with the Bruce-Clutha Hospital Separation Bill m a letter which we nubhsh in another column Mr A. Rennie uses an unfortunate argument to support iiis case for separation. "If Duuedin W ere rated on up-to-date valuation (as is the case in Bruce and Clutha)," says Mr Rennie, and not of eleven years ago it would increase its annual revenue by £28 000 including the Government subsidy, which would work out at £10,000 above its present annual revenue even if -separation were granted to Bruce-Clutha district" Mr Jlennie s {joint is wholly nullified by the fact that the city and suburbs are beins revalued and the hospital levy will consequently net a much greater sum from the city with a corresponding reduction from Clutha and Bruce. The fault does not lia with either the city or the Hospital Board as the valuations are assessed by the Government Valuation Department. The hospital levy is struck on the Government valuation, and if the point raised by Mr Kennie is the crucial objection to a united hospital district it falls immediately Dunedm is revalued. While we are not disposed to disagree with Mr Rennie's tribute to Mr Massey we do seriously question hi 3 judgment in fathering the Separation Bill, and would point out that if Dunedin's under-valuation was a serious injustice to Bruce and Clutha Mr Massey was the one man who could have prescribed an instant remedy by ordering a revaluation. Our readers will note that the point mentioned is the only one maae by our correspondenV The vital difference between our attitude and that of the separationists remams. We desire to secure for the residents of South Otago full district hospital facilities, plus the invaluable addition of treatment of patients at the Dunedin Hospital. The separationists may succeed only in securing the former while sacrificing the latter.