'SIGNS OF THE TIMES."

Stratford Evening Post, Issue 69, 25 July 1929, Page 4

'SIGNS OF THE TIMES."

(Whilst in common fairness to all parties \ffie “Evening mil publish ail reasonable correspondence it does not necessarily associate itself with the* vipwe nvprcKSftd .1 Sir. —The only reason why I bother to note the letter in your last night’s issue, signed “Bible Student” and commenting on an alleged statement? made by myself at the Power Board’s meeting last Friday, is that in doing so I may be able to correct an apparent false impression gained by your anonymous correspondent. If your correspondent has any of the attributes of a student, as he calls himself, may I remind him that it is very misleading to ingore the context of a sentence, and also that any sound student always makes sure °t his facts. I cannot admit that the statement as set out in the letter, viz: .“That if a loss materialised on the Board’s working, they could not be to blame,” is a correct version of what I said. The “News” reports me as having said “there can be no criticism at the end of the year if the loss previously indicated is actually made” and the “Argus” report reads “There could be no criticism at the end of the year if a loss was shown.” The weight tof evidence is therefore against the corrections of, the statement as embodies in your correspondent’s fetter, and which was taken from a condensed report of the meeting.. The “loss” I was referring to at the time was not a.* loss .on the Board’s working account at all, but was a “loss” on the amount of rates to be collected from the ratepayers, due to the reduction of the availability rate from 2d to l|d. It must also be remembered., that 1 was addressing the Board’ at the time in support of the proposal to" reduce the rate, so as to relieve the burden which the ratepayers had had for 2 years ,and was answering the objection of the rate, namely, that tire decreased revenue from the reduce*! rate would probably leave the Board from £3OO to £4OO short of the total revenue, from current and rates, required for the year to meet the committments. I have yet to meet an/ ratepayer who is objecting to the rej duction of the rate. Any fool ea« make profits or balance revenue and expenditure by levying a rate on the ratepayers, but I suggest that it is i a more able policy for the Board to deliberately deprive itself of rate re* venue, and then strive to balance its accounts by better returns from its operating results. That is the policy was advocating, and I have every hope that, at the end of the present financial year, it will be found that, in spite of the reduction in the rate, the increased profits from the Booird’s business will have balanced accounts. The following figures, may interest your correspondent and ratepayers generally. In the year 192728, the loss made by tbe Board on its operating accounts was £7571, and the amount payable by the ratepayers as rates (after deducting all allowances for current consumed) was £16,457. In other words, to cover i a. loss of £7571 the Board collected s £16,457 in rates, a profit on rates •of £BBB6. In the year 1928-29,- the loss was £B2BB, and the rates payable were £13,567, another profit on rates of £5279. These profits from, rates, together with, revenue from the sale of power from the Board’s temporary plant during the construction years when interest charg cs, etc., were being paid out of loan, have now accumulated, until to-day the Board lias a net revenue account with a credit balance of a value of £16,000. I was opposed to the Board continuing the policy of collecting more in rates than it needed to meet The deficiency on the operating accounts, and for that reason advocated a nediuictioii To jljd. If the 2d rate had been imposed again this year, the Board would have again collected a profit from rates, whereas by the reduction of the rate t to lid, there is the prospect that the amount to be collected as rates would be approximately £3OOO short of the estimated loss on the year’s operating accounts. The estimated loss on the Board’s operating accounts for this year is £7OOO, as against the loss of £2BB made last year, an apparent improvement of £I2BB, but the actual improvement is at least £2288-, because this jyear, the Board is paying out of revenue for the first time free interest and sinking fund charges, £IOOO of which was paid last year out of loan moneys. Instead'of as in the past, collecting ,'ft-oni the ratepayers ratpe than the estimated loss £7OOO, by reducing the rat© the Board will probably collect only about £4OOO from rat© and will therefore show a loss on the total revenue of £3OOO. As the Board has accumulated rates, ©to. •of albont ’£16,000, which will carry a loss of £3OOO for at least 5 years, I feel quite satisfied that the policy I advocated is justified, and in view of the fact that the reduction of the vote will lighten the burden on the ratepayers, I have no hesitation in again repeating that “there can lie no criticism at the end of the year if the loss previously indicated is actually made.” If your “Bible Student” desires to search for further Bibical illustrations, analogous to Power Board af- : fairs may I refer him to the story of the Children of Israel and the promised land. —I am, etc.,N. H. MOSS.