THE ST. KILDA MAYORALTY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22825, 9 March 1936, Page 14

THE ST. KILDA MAYORALTY

TO THE EDITOR.

Sir,—The newly-formed St. Kilda Labour Party has circulated a pamphlet giving the reasons why the electors of St. Kilda should elect Mr Robinson as their Mayor. The party quotes Mr Robinson's two years' service as a councillor. It admits my two terms as Mayor, but ignores mv equally lengthy service as a councillor of St. Kilda and also my service to the district as a member of the Drainage Board. Only those with an intimate knowledge of the board's work can estimate the value of my services to the borough. The St. Kilda Labour Party seeks to cloud the issue by introducing the rating system. The writer of the pamphlet asks in black type, Where stands Mr Marlow on the rating system? It may interest the writer to know (as the council records will show) that, when a councillor of St. Kilda, Mr Marlow moved that the principle of rating on unimproved values be approved, believing that was in the best interests of St. Kilda. The system of rating can only be altered by a vote of the electors, and the Mayor has no more power than the voter with the least interest in the borough. If elected, I shall not take any steps to alter the method of rating, but shall loyally administer the system in force. The same argument applies to amalgamation, and I most certainly shall not take any steps, during my term of office, to alter the existing state of affairs. The writer prints in block type: "Mr Marlow was Deputy Mayor of the city when the above dispute"—relative to the water meter service—" originated, and iu his public utterances .on the question he was just as insistent as any other city councillor that the people of St. Kilda be forced to pay to the city £206 for water which they did not receive." This is contrary to fact. The position is that the Water Department claims that St. Kilda received the water. If so, it should pay. St. Kilda denies receiving it, and no power can compel St. Kilda to pay for goods it did not receive. I twice moved that a committee of the two bodies be set up to settle this dispute, and had it rot been for the unfortunate affair last year, causing the resignation of the members of the St. Kilda Council who were on this committee, I believe a settlement would have been arrived at. As it is simply a matter of fact, in my opinion a proper method of settling the dispute would be to appoint two impartial business men to investigate, their decision to be final. In any case, the St. Kilda icsidents can be assured that their interests would be safeguarded to the best of my ability.—l am, etc., James J. Marlow.