THE WATER RATE QUESTION.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXIII, Issue 29, 31 May 1912, Page 5

THE WATER RATE QUESTION.

(To the Editor "Stratford Evening Post.") Si rj —Now that "Anti-Humbin-g" has made a- definite statement of his views regarding special loans, it is easier to follow him. ft appears that we are both arguing from a different standpoint. His article of belief is: That interest, en all special loans should lie provided out of special rates. My article of belief is: That interest on special loans raised for reproductive purposes should be provided out of the revenue produced by the works for which such loans were raised. Failing to agree in our beliefs, it is useless to argue the rights or wrongs of the Council's action in reducing the water rate. _ From "Anti-Humbug's" point of view, the Council during the last twelve years has been overcharging for water. Prom my point of view, the Council has not charged enough. It is interesting, however, to find where "Anti-Hum-bug's*'' policy of collecting special rates for interest on special loans would lead us. Tn addition to the special loans of £12,000, we have for waterworks (and J think ratepayers will agree that this is a reproductive work), we have further special loans as under for reproductive works:—

Abattoir £4300, Town Hall 63000. Though special rates were struck for these .loans, they have never been collected. Will "Anti-Humbug" advocate the collection of special rates for the above loans, and will be say that the present system of making these institutions provide enough revenue for interest and maintenance s wrong? If he will advocate the collection of special rates for the abattoir and Town Hall leans, I can then understand bis attitude on the water loan question, and it will be nsclors for tne to attempt to convince him further. However, I think that the majority of ratepayers will agree that sufficient revenue 1 should be obtained from works of a reproductive nature ho provide interest and sinking fund for the loans, and ordinary maintenance. Further, in reply to "AntiHumbup.V" question in the latter onrt of his letter. 1 do certainly Hunk thnt where the Rorou«rh has a commodity to sell at a fair figure it should reap the benefits of any profits that may be made. In support of my contention, 1 might point ori that the Council certainly takes advantage of the increase in rents I i make n ennsidernble orofit out of the Municipal Buildings. Here they rrnke a profit out of their reserves. why not make n profit out of the water supply?—Yours, etc.. ' "COMMON SENSE."