HAMILTON MAYORALTY

Waikato Times, Volume 113, Issue 18926, 21 April 1933, Page 2

HAMILTON MAYORALTY

MR C. LAFFERTY’S VIEWS. economy aovooated. ADDRESS TO FRANKTON MEETING: A policy of fair and economical administration of borough affairs was advocated by Mr C. Rafferty, in support 'of bis candidature for the Mayoralty of Hamilton, when he addressed a meeting of about 250 ratepayers in’the Frankton Town Hall last night. A number of councillors were among those present. Mr Lafferty, who is a member of the present borough council, was given an attentive hearing, and at the conclusion of Ills remarks, which were mainly conUhed to an analysis of borough affairs, and an exposition of his policy if returned, he was accorded a unanimous vole of thanks and confidence. Mr ,T. S. Anchor presided, and in briefly Introducing the candidate, referred to Mr Rafferty’s long service on the council. The speaker prefaced his address with the intimation that he had no personal feeling against either the present Mayor or Mr Fow and he did not Intend to say anything about them except when they were directly concerned In the subjects of his remarks. “I stand for the right of ratepayers to approve or disapprove /of all borough loans," he continued* "As you have to guarantee repayment you should be consulted. And I advocate a square deal for the people where trading charges arc applicable, Including light, heat, and power." He stated that while economy had been promised, the present council had committed the ratepayers to the extent of £30,000 in loans without consulting them. This included £IO,OOO for the new bridge, £12,000 for the municipal chambers, £BOOO for bridge repairs, and £7OOO as a sewerage loan. While the new ■municipal buildings were very fine, he objected lo the site, and the transfe. of money from various accounts to the building fund, an action which was entirely wrong. Five thousand, had been transferred from the electricity account to the building account.

The New Bridge Question.

The biggest question before the ratepayers to-day concerned the new bridge. Various suggestions regarding the site had been mad,e, and eventually it was decided to erect the structure near No. 1 bridge, at a cost of £24,000. “In my opinion, No. i bridge Is unsafe, and it will have to be replaced, or a culvert made,” said Mr Rafferty. He claimed that the cost of the bridge would be in excess of £24,000 and a worse site than that decided upon could not have been selected. If the bridge were built there much of the traiflo which would normally pass through the town, to the benefit of the business community,, .would bo diverted. Had the site selected been in the vicinity of Roitrevor or Liverpool Streets the new torldf* would have been of much great#? 1 benefit; s&* The amalgamation of the Domain ■Board with the borough oounoil.ln the intereete of eoonomy and more efficient working was advocated by -Mr Laff«rty ( who contended that the combination of effort would give the two bodies wider loops for their operations. In making this proposal It was not his Intention to cast any reflection on the members of the board, but the elosor co-operation with the council woujid produce better results. The speaker thought that amalgamation should be brought about by the incoming council. Strong exception was taken by Mr Lafferty to the overhead expenses in the borough engineer’s department. It had been found that the borough spent approximately £40,000 in this department, and paid over £2400 annually in salaries, he said. In his opinion, it was overstaffed, and there should bo a reduction. The speaker voiced his objection to the utilisation of members of the engineer’s staff on the new bridge site, outside the borough. There could be economies effected in salaries, and if these were brought within reasonable bounds more men could be given work. Ramoval of Qardan Place. Another matter worthy of consideration was the removal of Garden Place Hill. "It has been stated that I have misled the council and have been ignorant of the position when I stated that the cost of this would be more than was estimated," _ said Mr Rafferty. "Going baok to the Anglesea Streot cutting, the costs of the removal of the hill were revised at March 31, 1932, and estimated at £95,000, Including the purchase of the necessary land and buildings. The value of the property on completion of the works was estimated at £116,000, and If the soheme was carried out with relief labour the cost was assessed at £71,000." The speaker quoted figures to show that the cost of removing the hill would be in the vicinity of £120,000, and he contended that the work would be of no real value to the town, and would benefit only a few who had property adjacent to Garden Place. "I realise that we will have to take the unemployment question In hand, and if the Government does not do something the council will have to take action," the speaker continued. He referred to tho soheme which ho placed before tho council some months ago as a medium for improving the position of the workless. "Some provision should be mado by the oouncil whereby permanent works should be accomplished. Wo have received last year and paid out €IB,OOO in relief wages from the UnBmployment Board. I see no reason why wo should not subsidise this imount out of our maintenance account and profit from the trading account and cut down our overhead expenses by £IOOO a year or another alternative that the ratepayers be asked to sanction a loan of £IO,OOO for permanent works, such as curbing and channeling and laying down permanent footpaths in the borough. would approximately work out at £25,000. We would have completed the whole of our original programme for channelling and curbing the footpaths of Hamilton, which would be a considerable advantage and a saving It (lie ratepayers in general. We originally requested - that a loan be granted from Iho Roans Board for £30.000 of which the board did not approve, if we could gel. Ibis work done now for approximately a cost of ten In fifteen thousand ‘of loan money and Ihe addition of the Roans Board urier'ii thousand we would make a

• i'll ileal ami I In? unemployed could i- kept .coin.? four weeks ami no ,i.'.ml iliiun week." Under such a

Continued n next column.)

scheme the town as well as the men would benefit. The Municipal Conference. Mr Lafferty expressed the view that' the recent municipal conference at Rotorua, attended by 124 delegates, should have been able to devise some scheme to assist the unemployed. If the conference had no time to discuss the unemployment question it seemed to him that it was of no use and the sooner It was cut out the better, lie objected to tho Mayor and town clerk representing the borough, as it was his opinion that councillors should have gone. Referring to council meetings the speaker said that during his term of office lie had tabled various notices of motion, and one was that no more loans should be raised by the council without first being placed before the ratepayers. (Applause). in his opinion it was the duty of the council to do' this. In offering himself for the mayoralty lie came forward with sixteen years’ service on the council and had always endeavoured 10 serve •tho ratepayers honestly. If lie was elected lie would he fair in all mailers of administration, and other aspects of borough affairs. At the conclusion of his address Mr Rafferty answered a number of questions, following which a unanimous vole of thanks and confidence, uiocal by Mr 0. linsor, was carried by acclamation.