CORRESPONDENCE.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 12657, 10 January 1912, Page 6

CORRESPONDENCE.

TAXING MOTOR CARS. . j (To the Editor of the Herald.) . j Sir, — I am surprised to see the Borough Council have decided to tax motor cars and motor, cycles to allow | owners the privilege of running on their ' roads. This seems to me absurd ai\d un- 1 fair for tAvo reasons. First, the owners of cars m this district are property owners and pay heavy rates already. I pre- j sumo rates are struck for the purpose of maintaining and making roads to be used by the ratepayers (directly or indir-l ectly). The latter, I am sorry to- say,] seems to have been sorely neglected, for tho Borough roads are only fit for bullock traffic, and to ask for a fefo to allow us to use them is really too funny. Secondly, why should the owners of cars and motor cycles be asked to pay such a fee when they use their cars merely forj private use, " I could understand such a charge being made or even more if plying tor hire. The next thing will be the taxing of buggies, etc If fair for one it is fair for the other. The fee, 10s, is not

: m question, it is the principle of such a irate. When .the roads are bad, such as m Avinter time, cars are seldom used, therefore you must admit that carts and I buggies do more harm m a week than a ■ motor car Avould do m a year. I belieA'e every motor car owner m this district would nay a reasonable amount per annum if the authorities Avould only see that the roads Avere put m good order and made safe to run on. The Borough Council should have been the last to demand such a tax. — Yours, etc., MOTORIST.