BOROUGH DRAINAGE.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXVII, Issue 42, 19 June 1915, Page 6

BOROUGH DRAINAGE.

[io The Editor Stratford Post.] Sir, —T read with pleasure Mr Wilson’s letter on drainage, and although he condemns my proposal, he suggests exactly the same principle, and I think, therefore, it wise to tell the readers of your paper exactly the position . Mr Wilson says: “Let his Worship bring down a scheme to do away I with the present iniquitous method of , making the whole Borough pay for the drainage of the favored few by levying a tax on all W.C’s. sufficient to payinterest on loan moneys, go on ,with a fresh loan for the parts of the town not at present served, and at the same time cease to collect the drainage rate, and he will have the support of the ratepayers.” Now, we both agree as to the injustice being done to those 400 houses having to pay the present drainage rate and reap no benefit whatever. Then we also agree that it is an injustice that those 'connected with the sewer should have their >W.C. flushed free of charge, and the unfortunate 400 who happen to live in the street without the sewer should have to pay £1 per year as at present to have his emptied, with all the disagreeableness in connection with it. In addition to this to have to find a place on his own section to run his soap suds, dish and .batji water and other waste from the house, which is a source of danger to his family unless very carefully attended to. Then our Building Inspector has instructions, according to bye-lays and resolutions of past Council that no permits shall he granted to those buildings, showing the sewer running past their section, unless they connect, and already this year the Council has been called upon to put in three connections, costing approximately £7 each, and everyone in the Borough pays their quota towards these privileged few, because there is no other., course open to the Council but to pay it out of revenue.

To stop this, my proposition was to at once have provision in our by-laws to charge £1 each for flush closets ami 10s for each extra if more than one was used in the premises. We would have stopped this iniquitous charge of the whole borough paying for extension of drainage out of revenue and also the machinery would lie ready for using for a drainage loan without levying any further rates on the Borough, as this would pay interest on the loan. * , Mr Wilson suggests 30s, and as I am one who enjoys all the privileges of the flush system, I personally would not object to paying 30s for the convenience. /But I consider the loan for streets more urgent. Just look at them. Our tarred footpaths are nearly all worn out, from the Courthouse on the south side of river to Picture Palace on the north on both sides of Broadway. All wood kerbings throughout the borough are rotten and falling off; also a large number of the streets want remetalling. Broadway central street and footpath want regrading. In addition, the pound 1 was built by the late Council, but about £IOO has to be paid for by this Council; also tin’s Council has to pay for the whole of the cement used by the last Council for all purposes of pound yards, and kerbing, channelling, etc., amounting to about £llO. In addition to this, we have had to arrange for about £l2O for a receptacle, etc., for receiving the nightsoil, as at present it is being carted to the Monmouth Road. Now, I don’t think* the burgesses of the Borough are in the mood to go in for a large loan, and I have decided by force of circumstances that the drainage loan can wait and “a street improvement, kerbing and channelling loan” would at once relieve our revenue and improve the >vho!e appearance of our town and thus draw trade and allow oru revenue to be devoted to the maintenance of our streets, etc., hence my action in trying to put matters on a better footing.—l am, etc. JOS. W. BOON'

Mayor