THE LOAN PROPOSALS.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXV, Issue 22, 24 January 1913, Page 8

THE LOAN PROPOSALS.

THE MAYOR’S MOTION. j CARRIED ON THE CASTING VOTE.. A full attendance of councillors was obtained for the special meeting of the Council last night, when the Mayor (Mr W. P. Kirkwood) moved that the proposed Joan be placed before the ratepayers in four separate issues—namely, Street Improvements, Bridge, Water Extension and Purification, and Drainage. He moved this resolution, Mr Kirkwood said, believing it to be the best interests of the Borough that the loan proposals should go before the ratepayers in this form. Placing the loan thus before the ratepayers did not debar them from carrying the whole loan or from carrying any part of it. If they put the whole loan before the ratepayers in one complete loan there would be a large number of ratepayers who would have to vote against it altogether, whereas with four separate issues those ratepayers would have the alternative of voting for a small part, a major part, or the whole loan. ■He would not take up any further time, but would formally move his resolution. Or. Dingle inquired as to details of the proposal, and was informed that the amounts of the proposed isues was as follows :—Street improvements, £20,000; drainage, £2000; bridge, £6000; and water, £4OOO. Cr. King thought this was the only right and proper way to place the loan before the ratepayers, who would then have the opportunity of voting for any work they thought necessary, and voting for anything they thought unnecessary.

Silence followed, and the Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak to the motion.

Cr. Morison then rose to oppose. He was greatly disappointed, he said, after working closely and harmoniously at this matter for twelve months; in fact, during the whole of Hus Worship’s term of office, that at one strike His Worship should have practically divided the Council .and precluded all posibility of carrying this loan. He said without fear of any contradiction that he believed that this was a very serious matter. One section of the community would vote for £20,000 to lie spent on street improvement, another section would vote for £2OOO on drainage, and yet another section for £6OOO on the bridge. Cr. Ward: They will all vote for that.

Cr. Morison continued that he thought a great many of the ratepay-l ers would vote for the bridge, but if the Mayor’s motion was carried they ran a risk of losing the whole loan, and thus doing the ratepayers a very serious injury. The Mayor had adopted, Cr. Morison exclaimed, a very I pariochial spirit, and a spirit which ho was surprised the Mayor should i have displayed. Doubtless a great! mauve people already supplied with luxuries (good reads, good frontages, |

etc.) would vote against further improvements. He would say, personally, that it did not matter to him whether Stratford advanced in north, oast, south, or west; he wanted to see Stratford advance, as a whole . To set one section of the community against another was disastrous. The! Mayor had said that the ratepayers j were not losing anything, but'they) were losing a great deal; they were | losing that harmonious spirit that had

characterised this Council in its work throughout the year. Ho believed that if the Council went before the ratepayers with a solid front, being unanimous that the time had arrived when Stratford should go in for a loan, even if this loan was a £50,000 one, then he believed the ratepayers would carry it. The Council would then have done well. It would he a wise man who could see what Stratford) was going to he in ten years. One had only to go outside Stratford, he said, to hear all about Stratford. It had the immense advantage of being centrally situated. He advised members to take a broadminded view of a position which he knew would he settled by a casting vote. This motion was an unfair thing; it was not a generous thing.

Cr. Morison concluded: “If we can’t trust the ratepayers with an important matter like this, I for one am not too satisfied. We want to have confidence in the ratepayers, and place this tiling before them in a publicspirited manner.” Cr. Healy advocated putting the loan proposals in one issue, and remarked that it was unfortunate that the Borough of Stratford was divided into parts in which the voting power was not distributed evenly. However, when it came to the casting vote, His Worship would have a chance of redeeming his decision. Cr. Dingle opposed the resolution, and agreed with Cr. Morison in respect to how the ratepayers would vote. One section of the community would vote for the street improvements because there was very little doubt that one end of the toAvn was getting the big end of the stick ; though he was not going to say hut that they were entitled to it. If this drainage scheme was carried, the whole of the ratepayers in the Borough would have to pay the rate equally. Other parts of the Borough which required drainage would not get it, but would have to pay the rate. As Cr. Healy had pointed out, the greater voting power was on the northern end, where the drainage was to he put in. And it was unfair for those on the southern end to have to pay for the benefits and privileges that these people on the northern end would get, and then have what little they (the southern end) asked for cut out. In reference to the bridge, it had been said that that was purely a southern luxury. He contradicted that. He said that that bridge was just as much a benefit to those who were living on the northern end as to those who were living in the southern extremity. It would be a direct benefit to every resident in the district, and to the travelling public. As for the water, he had no objection to that, though he could not see there was much wrong with it; the issue could be very well cut out. He gave it as his personal opinion that if the Mayor’s motion was carried the whole thing was going to fail. It would have been very much fairer if the loan had been taken as a whole, and the greater chance there would then have been of it being carried. Cr. Boon supported the motion, opining that it was the only fair thing the Mayor could do. Why, he asked, should they lump the whole thing together and then get nothing carried P Taking the bridge for example, if the majority of the people wanted it, it would he carried; if they did not want it, it would be lost. The position was exactly the same as the drainage, —if the people of the Borough thought it was too much they would cast it out. It looked to him as if there were a few who wanted the bridge at any cost; they did not care twopence as long as they got the bridge in. They wanted the whole loan so that they could shove the bridge in; yet the only people who actually benefitted by the bridge were those persons who held sections near by. It had been proved that the traffic was not congested, and they knew that with a little repairs to the bridge it would last a long time. Personally, he was not in favour of voting for the bridge. Cr. Morison had said that the Council was trying to force this thing on the Council, but it was just the other way about. Cr. Morison was trying to force on the public something that the public did not want. It was absurd to talk about splitting up the Council and losing the harmonious feeling. It did not affect them at all. Cr. King: “He was talking to the gallery then!” Cr. Boon continued that a greater area of land stood on the north side, and therefore a greater amount of rates came from that locality. Was it not right that that end should have the greater voting power? Why should a small section of ratepayers rule the whole thing? If the Council was going to put the whole thing in one issue, it Avon Id mean that much of their time Avould have been wasted.

Cr. Ward stated in regard to this matter that he advocated previously that the proposals should be placed before the ratepayers in three separate isues. There was too much talk about the bridge. He himself felt certain that the bridge would be carried, but that the drainage would not be carried. He was against completing the drainage of Stratford piecemeal, and he would have liked to have seen the whole of the drainage completed at one time—not that this should be done to-day, but it would bo necessary in a few years’ time. Now they might have to raise a fresh loan to finish the work, and that would be hard to carry. He did not think there was any parochial spirit in the matter. With the exception of ihe drainage Joan, the whole of the Bor-

migh had been fairly well treated, and he felt certain that the whole ol\ the loan (drainage again excepted) would be carried. The other councillors were invited to speak, but Councillor Thompson and Councillor McAllister remarked lie hardly thought it was necessary to waste time.

The Mayor, in reply, stated that in Lis opening he purposely avoided raising any controversial matters. He ; noticed there was a tendency for one j side to contend against the other, bus this had arisen through no action of his. A great deal of prominence rad been given to the bridge, bub his motion concerned every issue. Cr. Morison had said that he was acting in a parochial spirit, but he thought if the councillor reviewed his own position he would see that Cr. Morison himself had adopted the parochial attitude. Cr. Morison had said in effect to himself “I want the bridge at all costs, and if you don’t a o+e for my bridge I won’t vote for your street or your drainage.” Cr. Morison denied that this was Ids attitude, or that his words could be so construed. The Mayor, however, contended that this was the case, and proceeding, ridiculed the idea that the * arrying of this motion would “divide” the Council—divide it in spirit. Cr. Morison again objected. Replying to Cr. Dingle’s remarks, the Mayor contended that justice had been done to the southern end, which had nothing to complain about. He also disposed of the contention that the work done during the twelve months had been work wasted. Even if nothing were carried, the good and solid work done would be of great use later on. Cr. Ward: “Hear, hear.” In conclusion, His Worship contended that no injustice had been done bysplitting up the issues. It was quite likely that they would ret the bridge, but he would say that it was wrong for any councillor to make a suggestion to the ratepayers that they should vote against one thing because they may not get another. Surely, that was parochialism. The issues should be put separately, and should be voted upon on their merits. This he felt certain, was the attitude the ratepayers would adopt. The motion was then put to the meeting, and the following division recorded; Ayes—Crs. Boon. King. Ward, McAllister, and the Mayor: Xpes—Crs Healy, Thompson, Lawson. Morison and Dingle. The motion was then declared carried on the Mayor’s casting vote. Cr. Morison gave notice to rescind. The Mayor at first refused to accept this, but ultimately acquiesced, the meeting being fiixed for Monday week.