CORRESPONDENCE.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XLVIII, Issue 12366, 5 December 1904, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

THE BOROUGH LOAN PROPOSALS

TO-DAY'S POLL

To the Editor

Sir, —Kindly permit me a little spade to point out a very misleading statement made in the "Wanganui Heralds leading article on Saturday. Readers are told that while six years ago the indelbt■edness of the Borough was £55,000, and the raites 2s 5d plus a £1 w.c. fee, now tha indebtedness is £175,000 and the rates only 2s 2d. These statements are only haW the'truth, and I cannot help thinking that if the editor was desirous that -readers should know all the facts She would ihave told them that in addition to the 2s 2d-yrate there was a pendin°- liability of over £4000 interest and sinking fund on the £70,000 and £16,000 loans not provided for. On the present valuation this means a Is Id addition to ■the present rate, making it 3s 3d. This is the fact which both the Mayor and the ex-Mayor are so 'anxious to hide from the ratepayers. For the past few years they ihave preached tihe doctrine 'that large loans mean low rates, but theiy are now face to face with facts which prove 'them false preachers, and they want .another £11,000 to hide this ugly fact. I hope the ratepayers will roll up on Monday and put a check on reckless financing.—l am, etc., LOOK BEFORE YOU LEAP.

To the Editor

Sir, —Siraoe 'returning to town on tSalturday .after several days' absence, there /has come under my notice a statement, iriferentially made by Mr Hatrick in a Mter to the "Herald" on the 30th tilt., to the effect that I opposed both the £16,000 and the £70,000 loans. I would not trouble to correct this statement but that it is .donitdnually reiterated by {certain parities to suit their purposes. The fact is, sir, I have never opposed 'any municipal loan up to the present. I did express the opinion that it 'would T>B better to keop the i-ates at 2s od and raise less than £16,000, but I vdted for the loan. Then, with respect to the water-works loan, I certainly pressed the consideration of a 'more mod-. •eslfc soheime, but I voted also for this loan.—l am, etc., W. G. BASSETT.

To the Editor,

iSir,—Your leader of Thursday ought to 'affect the decision of many ratepayers whose' minds are open to conviction. Tammanyism .has spread far beiyond America. In the deliberations of public men the consideration of the public weal is giving place to tihalt of private gain. Wanganui is fortunate in having such men as Councillors Bassett and Liffiton, who are capable of looking at proposals with a keen business eye t and willing to sink personal interests. "Pessimists" they are styled; "fossiLs" would be a more appropriate term, for they are specimens of a betiter order of things— -an order that I (hope to see revived. Councillors point tio our low rates without explaining that the rate per pounddepends more upon the alteration in property values than upon their careful administration, and that ratepayers have tiheir local Itaxation increased without the rate being rfaised. The large expenditure upon the Okehu Walter-works was a necessity. We all hope the apparent success of the undertaking will stand the test of time. But the Council, in shaking hands with itself, forgets tfeat to Mr Peat is really due the credit of testing the water supply. Instead, tiheir very capable official in charge is credited with "indomitable pluck" for simply doinig his duty whilst receiving a good salary and spending public"money. The present loan proposals are of a different stamp.- Before going to the poll on Monday I ask myself the following questions, that ought to be faced by every ■ratepayer—Are the works really wanted ait the present time? If they were, would it be wise to borrow for them, considering the present high rate of interest and the prospects of further deficiency in future balances? Is it not to be expected that improyeinenJts in lighting, etc., may at any time render some of the proposed ■■ work obsolete? Under the circumstances, oughlfc a pulblic body to saddle itself with these loads? Would a private cndividu'al do it? Is it right to pass the •liability on to oucr children, who will C/till find plenty of expenditure to face in •extending our works or superseding them? Would we thank our parents for such a legacy? And who but the strong local, business men would 'be most benefited by the expenditure of these proposed loans?—l am, etc.,

THOUGHTFUL

To the Editor.

Sir, —The manifesto issued by tuie Mayor scarcely redounds to his credit a? the chairman of the Finance Committee, as it simply amounts to tiiis: that unless ttip. loan is raised the works and progress of the Borough must ba stopped for "want of cash. This Abatement;1 to pub it in a mild form, is very misleading h! aiidihardly;j\*arran't«tk 'by facts, for-^we are told respecting tine Gasworks loan tihiat the 'exnendiiture may 'be extended -over a period of years iand nob required hi, once. This statement alone should ba sufficient 'argument to condemn the .proposal, as the profits, or a portion of .them, derived from Ithe sale of gas and ■by-producte should prtiove quite sufficienit for the extension of im'ains. etc. It does nob say much for the fin'anoas of the Bca-ough if we are conitinn'ally to raise loans for works tfoaJb ought to be paid for out of revenue; and the sooner we

are out of ,the •unhealthy atmosphere of •borrowing for every work undertaken, <tho better it will be for the (ratepayers an general. Public works loan: Your contemporary in Saturday's issue attempts to laud the .policy of the late Mayor in heaping up loans for posterity to pay, and quotes the., Qkehu water supply..as beiii^1 a perfect-one.;'; If the ■editor of the article resided iir town and ■Qiad to use the mud-puddle of stuff meted out. during the past week ho ■would, tell a different story, as the water Anas enough ito .poison lamyono drinking it. Should this continue during the hot weather I fear an epidemic of disease ■will be the result, 'which would prove very costly to the riesideinits of the town. The surplus revenue from the ordinary waiter suipply account ought to 'be sufficient to provide funds to meet the cost of extension of mains, and the expandiii(2; revenue from the reserves account

(vi 1^ 2', Griffiths' statement) ought to 1?• .^iciont to form and metal streets requiring this work. Comparison is also made between the nate levied about •eight years ago and those up to last March, the former quoted at -2s 5d in the £ and the latter at Is lOd. Now, eir, leib us see how this was caused, and the works carried out (by tho means of revenue instead of loans. The first was

that of the river bank protective works, casting 'about £4000, a<ll of which wn« ipaid oui of .revenue, and the second item was thai of extension of mains, at a cost of over £3000." Both of these items were taken out of revenue, and no loans were thought of being Raised. The ordinary water- supply account is now in credit, •and if the estimated surplus of £1000 'is fully maintained, then I contend there is lample revenue to meet all demands for extension. The Mayor.states that the -object of the loan is to retain the premier position in finance. Does ihe mean thalfc .we 'are the 'most iheaviilv an deibt?

If not, then there is no necessity for a loan. >as wo are better able to bear n

IHttle strain on tho ordinary •account.'? il;,an other Boroughs who aro no'fc in suon a good pos'Ltkm on these accounts. Ho nlso says that no incr-sas-e of rates will ■I>3 required if tho proposal to bcrrow is carried. Just so I—Ithe evil day of reckoning is to be postponed, and tho policy of iiis predecessor is to I>9 continued and

the question of providing revenue to meet the extra.interest and sinking fund on loans handed down to his successor. The other statement is that unless the loan is carried the proposed work cannot be dbno or a large increase in rates will be necessary. TJiis seems to me to be the strongest argument for rejecting the proposal, for if we cannot now pa.y the interest and sinking funds on the present loans and provide the wherewithal to carry on ordinary expenditure, how are we to provide these sums when an aditioinal burden is placed on our shoulders? We must not forget that this year we shall have to provide the interest, etc.. on the £70,000 waterworks loan. That being so, let the ratepayers wait to see what amount they will have to pay annually before any further burden is, placed on them. If the present Mayor and Council cannot see their way to carrry on without the loan, let them either give place to better men that can or wait till next April, when the matter can ibe decided at the election of Mayor and fresh Council.

To the Editor. Sir, —The ratepayers will be acting in the best interests of themselves by supporting the gas loan, because the extensions proposed to be Carried out will bring in a profitable return in due course, and the management to date has been beyond our most sanguine expectations. But fthe loan for street extension, drainage, etc., the 'ratepayers will be wisa in rejecting, because we 'have no right to 'borrow"money for such a purpose. Our City Fathers <are becoming reckless. They are going too fast on borrowed money. There is plenty of time to carry out these works, as there is no immediate necessity for them. The Councillors have declared that between 600 and 700 w.c. connections will hare to be completed within twelve months, which is estimated will cost about £7000, and in the face of this large expenditure the ratepayers are asked to vote for another large loan. A thraat has been made that if we reject h!te loan they will go on with the 'work and increase our rates largely. This is mere bluff. The r.ejectioin of the loam will also be a further indication to the Councillors that the ratepayers consider there is_no immediate necessity to go on with the works proposed. Kindly insert, and, thanking you in anticipation, I am, dtc.j J.ANDERSON.