LOAN PROPOSAL SHELVED

Taranaki Daily News, 7 February 1928, Page 9

LOAN PROPOSAL SHELVED

STREETS OF NEW PLYMOUTH IMPROVEMENTS COSTING £93,599. PLAN FELT TO BE TOO AMBITIOUS. (PREFERENCE TO SEWERAGE LOAN Amidst a bewildering medley of protestation* about the method of disposing of the question, the New Plymouth Borough Council decided last night by Ave votes to three to shelve the £93,509 street loan proposal until after the- sewerage loan proposal has been placed before the ratepayers and either authorised or dismissed. Long and occasionally heated discussion centred round the proposal, the council appearing to be divided as to whether to go ahead with the full programme, modify it considerably, and raise a smaller loan, or else carry on by striking an additional annual rate. The proposal to raise the loan was made by Cr, T. MePhillips, chairman of the works committee, who gave as his reason that* it was the cheapest and most economical method of bringing the streets up to a state of efficiency. “I am sure you will agree with me when I say that we are ten years behind the times with our untarred streets and footpaths,” said Cr. MePhillips. “We cannot go on as we are at the present time. We must either raise a loan with an extra halfpenny rate for 25 years, er extra 5-Sd for 20 years. Naturally you will want to know how we cotfid raise £93,500 and have only an extra halfpenny rate to pay interest and sinking fund. "After going carefully into the matter J find that when the work is completed we will make a saving of £4200, which ie made up of labour and overhead charges that to-day are wasted, and we are getting no further with permanent work. You must all realise that to put down streets without tar is only wasting the ratepayers’ money. “What state are our streets in at the present time that are not tar-sealed? They are like a river-bed, and if the council does not launch a progressive policy at once, to stop them getting rnto a worse condition, it will take a | £200,000 loan or a fourpenny rate to . make them. I can say without fear of contradiction that in the past the streets have been starved. I find that last year tire engineer's office put in for a further £BOOO, and £2OOO and £3OOO in previous years. STREETS HAVE BEEN STARVED. “What was done with it? The pen Was put through it without any discus»ion, and the result is that the streets have been starved. If it had not been for loan moneys in the past we would have very few streets in the borough today. To my mind a loan is the quickest and most satisfactory method at the present time. It is as important to have footpaths, kerbs and channels in good order as to have the streets done. There is only a portion of them allowed for in the loan, but should the loan be raised there should be from £2009 to £3OOO out of rates for footpaths. “What are we doing with our untarred footpaths at the present time? Most of them are dust-heaps. When the first rain comes we send men to.throw s bit of gravel or clay on them. Then heavy rain comes and washes most of it, into the gutters. Again, the men are sent to clean the gutters and throw all the gravel or clay on to the side of the road. Then more men are sent with a horse and dray to pick it all up again. This method must go on until we get sufficient revenue .to make them permanent.

“To my mind a loan is the quickest and most satisfactory method of coping with the position of our roads and streets as they stand at present, and to my mind the fairest way. Let those who come in in 10 or 20 years help to pay their share for having good roads and footpaths, which they will have to do if a loan is raised. Otherwise, by a very heavy rate, we will be penalising present-day ratepayers. Personally, 1 have no axe to grind. I have a good street to my house, but I know there are a number of ratepayers who are contributing to the upkeep of good streets whilst they have neither streets nor footpaths themselves. Some may think I am putting the cart before the horse in going on with streets before the sewerage, but that is not so. They must both come.” NOT JUSTICE TO RATEPAYERS. It was not justice to those ratepayers who had been paying rates for the past 12 or 14 years and had been receiving nothing in return, continued Ur. McPhillips. On all sides such positions existed, Devon Street West and Whitely {Street being typical examples. To-day, the borough was not losing hundreds of pounds, but thousands of pounds by not bringing the roads and footpaths up to date and tar-sealing them. A sum of between £15,099 and £20,000 was needed in the first year to make a good start with this urgent work. The motion was seconded by Cr. Payne. Cr. Amoore said that in the main he supported the motion, though no doubt the council would whittle down the amount before the evening was finished He thought that if not the full loan, at least a portion of the loan should be put before the rate pa vers. The Mayor (Cr. H.‘ V. S. Griffiths) said he realised that it was necessary to embark upon considerable expenditure on the roads, but whether the conn oil should adopt a scheme of su b magnitude was another matter. He thought the council should be very careful indied in its reading loan. The borough was committed to a big and urgent expenditure ou sewerage, and he was of the opinion that the cart was being put before the horse. The sewerage loan should have first consideration, and he thought that the sewerage system should be laid in the streets before a scheme for finishing off the roads was carried into effect. “TIMES ARE HARD.” ’lt has been said that you pay for good roads whether you have them or not,” said Cr. P. E. Stainton. Times were hard, however, and even if the. council authorised the full schedula as brought down by Crs. McPh'.liips and Payne, he felt sure that the ratepayers Would be sure to turn the proposal down at the poll. He hoped in time the full scheme would be carried out, but at

present he thought the only hope was to modify the scheme considerably. Cr. J. Brown said he had opposed the loan from the beginning, and he intended to oppose the loan botn in the council room and out of it. Even supposing the loan were authorised by the ratepayers, the loans board would, he felt sure, never consider a 20 or 25 years’ loan. The highways hoard worked on a 12-year basis of loans, ' which showed that they realised that i the life of the roads was not more than 12 years. Anyway, lie was not by any means |in favour of tar-sealed roads every- | where. He considered tar-sealed roads I would be replaced by something better lin the fairly near future. A tar-sealed road was not as good as a macadam i read where there was not much traffic. I He had never agreed to the recent expenditure on Pioneer Road. The road should never have been formed and wid- ! ened as it was at present and left without metal. He did not think the wot<c | would be carried out for the estimated I amount, and in addition the council I would be loaded with a great deal of plant which it could not get rid of except at a sacrifice price after the work was completed. RATES COULD BE USED. He was of the opinion that a certain amount Of work could be done regularly each year out of rates, and if the rate were increased by Id or even Jd, the present plant could be kept going at full capacity. People were being hunted out of places like Wanganui because of the rates and interest on loan money, and New Plymouth would be in the same position if it were not careful. A day of reckoning was coming soon. It was only a waste of money to put before the- ratepayers a proposal for such a loan when the sewerage loan was hanging over their heads. In fact he would put a water loan first, before either the drainage loan or the streets loan. Water was an urgent need, and he was not sure whether he would support the drainage loan if it did not include a water loan. Cr. S. G. Smith said that there was uo doubt that the streets and footpaths —especially footpaths—were becoming a disgrace to the town. Either the council must increase the rates, or raise a loan to put the streets in order. He was surprised that Cr. Brown, with all his experience of. municipal work, should condemn the loan proposals and yet offer no suitable alterative. Which was the most economical, to raise a loan or pay an increase in the rate? He must confess with Cr. Stainton that it was doubtful whether the council would authorise the full streets loan. He agreed that water and drainage loans were first considerations. But they could not get along without a streets loan proposal as suggested by Cr. McPhillips, or else a satisfactory alternative. His vote would go towards putI ting the proposal as it was before the | public, so that the matter would be I open for discussion. TOO LARGE AN AMOUNT. Cr. J. Lobb felt that there was no hope of carrying a loan proposal involving such a large amount. Personally he would sooner pay an extra penny rate each year. If an extra lean year came along, the rate could be temporarily dropped. With a loan you were committed to the annual payment year after year. There was no escaping it. Cr. W. W. Thomson said he thought the streets and footpaths could bear a great deal of improvement. He did not think the loans board would countenance such a large loan as was proposed, but something had to be done, and he would support the proposal. At this stage the Mayor pointed out that if the sewerage and street loans were both authorised, the “average” ratepayer, with a £390 property, would have to pay £4 14s in rates. Could the average ratepayer pay this siim? Personally he felt that he could not. In addition, he did not think that as much saving would be effected as the street loan schedule indicated. He felt that the upkeep of tar-sealed streets where there was not much traffic would very likely be more than that of macadam roads, owing to the surface not being preserved by being kept plastic. Cr. MePhillips said that he had not heard one reasonable argument against the loan proposal. “RAFFEP.TY RULES.” Cr. Smith pointed out that the Mayor’s figure of £4 14s rates for the average ratepayer, if the sewerage and street loans were carried, was not strictly correct, for all the loan money would not be raised at once. The Mayor: Yes; but the ratepayer would be committing himself to that amount. And I have made no mention of a water loan. The Mayor moved as an amendment to Cr. MePhillips’ motion that the loan proposals be referred to the engineer (Mr. C. C. Clarke) for a report. Cr. J. Lobb seconded the amendment. Cr. MePhillips said this action would east a reflection on the work of the foreman. Cr. Stainton gave notice of motion to move a further amendment that the proposals be shelved until after the sewerage proposal had been put before the ratepayers and disposed of. The Mayor consented to withdraw his amendment in favour of Cr. Stainton’s proposed amendment. Several councillors rose io various points of order, and a miscellaneous argument and general debate ensued. Cr. Amoore rose to [speak, and while attempting to do so Cr. Brown rose to another point of order, submitting that the discussion had closed and' Cr. Amoore could not speak again. Cr. Amoore: Rafferty rules here this evening. The Mayor has given us permission to speak more than once. Amidst another general argument the Mayor called for a show of hands, which resulted as follows:—For Cr. Stainton’s amendment: Crs. Smith, Stainton, Brown, Lobb and Thomson. Against: Crs. Payne, MePhillips and Amoore. Crs. Smith and Amoore both protested that the amendment did not give them the opportunity of voting on the question as they wanted, but the Mayor ruled that the amendment had been carried. Cr. Amoore asked leave to withdraw, on the grounds that he was not going to start any new discussions at 11.39 p.m. Cr. MePhillips also withdrew, and the council proceeded with further debates until the early hours of this morning.