RICCARTON’S “BOOST.”

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17882, 25 June 1926, Page 9

RICCARTON’S “BOOST.”

To the Editor. Sir, —It is in a different state of mind that I again "rush to print” (I fancy I have heard that expression before). Your correspondent "Riccarton Boost” is evidently much up-to-date in his statistics, especially as he compares the reduced Riccarton rate not yet collected with last year's rates in the boroughs he names. Even allowing for the natural inclination of your correspondent to make such a mistake in his own favour, his reasoning is fallacious. If he wishes to knock off his general rate that portion I' which is struck for street lighting and fire protection, why not be just and reduce the rates in the boroughs quoted by whatever they levy for street lighting and fire protection purposes. Or perhaps Riccarton is peculiar in , this respect and other borough counj cils have not got such ultra-modern I conveniences as street lighting. No, Sir, I prefer to stick to my own basis of comparison, but am prepared I to accept the rates quoted by "Riccarj ton Boost” and modify my previous j statement by saying that instead of I there being last year only nine boroughs striking a higher general rate on unimproved value than Riccarton's si, there were ten out of the total I of sixtv-nine. I do this in my usual spirit of generosity and hereby tender "Riccarton Boost” my apologies for being so ignorant as to quote "stale figures.” The reduction of id I might say. has taken a load off my shoulders and having, after much mental effort, worked out the saving, I am investing the amount in the next Art Union. Had the rate struck gone up id the slogan of your correspondent could well be changed to "Riccarton Bust.”—l am, i etc., HAGLEY STREET.