ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS

Waipa Post, Volume V, Issue 216, 30 May 1913, Page 3

ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS

An Interested and Unbiassed Spectator.—As is above stated, no letter can be published in these columns unless the writer attach his name and address (not necessarily for publication). This is a condition which must be complied with.—Ed. W.P.]

TO THE EDITOR.

SIR, —The time has now arrived when the welfare of this town largely depends on the work and administration of the local governing body. There is a large • amount of borrowed money to be expended, and it is to the interest of the ratepayers to see that this money is properly spent. The question arises, is the Town Board doing the best thing possible ? In one thing they have failed badly, that is in the’employment of and obtaining reports from a- large number of experts, whose plans may be contradicted by an equally competent body. Without reflecting on the bona fides and ability of these gentlemen it is the wrongway to go to work. The better way would be to employ a man at a salary to do all the work connected with the loan expenditure. Scores of men are available at a reasonable salary. On the one hand you have-an army of experts at high fees and requiring the services of assistants and overseers at good wages. On the other you have a man, competent to do v all your work, always on the spot, and not having to be brought from Auckland or elsewhere when difficulties arise. Which is best, a competent engineer at £350 a year for two years, or an unknown amount (not less than £2000) and commissions.—l am, etc.,

Tambo

TO THE EDITOR.

SIR,— In your last issue I notice hat “Keen’’got very little information in response to his inquiry as to what was causing the delay in defining the brick area. In fact, your explanation, MiEditor, was only what was already known to the man on the street and I, with many other ratepayers, expected, on reading the inquiry, that some reasonable explanation would be given to account for this long-confirmed and unaccountable delay in declaring a brick area. Everybody knows that the Board defined the area and had a by-law drawn up over twelve months ago. That solved the question until a few months ago, when the Board was urged to make this by-law legal, and this request led up to the announcement that a special meeting would be held—that was two months ago, and yet nothing has been done. If the Board-will not have a brick area then why don’t they say so right out, instead of fooling ratepayers into the belief that something is being done. Surely, Mr Editor, you can give the public some information on this point, it is very much looked for.—Yours, etc., CURIOUS. [The circumstances leading up to the deadlock are as stated by our correspondent. Some two months ago the Board, in response to the request of the Chamber of Commerce, decided to hold a special meeting to again consider the advisability of defining a brick area. The date of this meeting has yet to be arranged. Whilst there is much to commend the proposed regulations respecting a brick area it must not be forgotten that there are some residents who strenuously oppose it, and

that the Board’s original proposal met with a certain amount *> of opposition. The Board will doubtless avail itself of the first opportunity to hold a special meeting, and arrive at a decision in this matter. —Ed. W.P.]