PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 126, Issue 21057, 8 March 1940, Page 7

PUBLIC OPINION

As expressed by correspowtantj whose letters are welcome, but tor whose views we have no respcosibility. Correspondent* are requested to write in ink. It is essential that anonymous writers enclose their proper names as • guarantee of good iaith. Unless this rule is complied with, their letters will not appear. GARDEN PLACE SCHEME (To the Editor) Sir,—ln the course of my business I have been a regular visitor to your town for quite a few years, and so have become rather familiar with i local matters. One problem which has especially interested me is that bone of contention the Garden Place scheme. The reason lam so interested is that it is somewhat like history repeating itself, as we had «n almost parallel case in a town in which I was residing some years ago. The chief difference between the two schemes is that in the other town it was the filling of a gully instead of the removal of a hill around which the controversy raged. Like the local case, the matter was wrangled i over year after year, very enthusiasI tically supported, of course, by the parties who would chiefly benefit—that is those who had property interests in the vicinity—and opposed by the general ratepayers, who could not see why they should pay when others would reap all the benefit. After some years of wrangling a scheme was involved which—it was hoped—would solve the problem to the satisfaction of all. As in Hamilton, it was agreed to divide the rate- | payers into two sections; those who would benefit by the improvement and those who would not, the bene-fit-ees, of course, to pay the cost of the improvements in the same way as your special rating area. This arrangement, one imagines, would have settled the controversy, but alas, it was not so. After the job had been under way for a time certain “ doubting Thomases ” began to point out that a fair number of the town councillors had property interests in the area, and it was hardly a fair thing for them to have control of a job from which they would receive the benefit, but as to who paid for the work depended upon their business ability. It was said that the council's men, trucks I and other equipment, were employed j intermittently on both the gully job | and on general borough work, and it was queried how accurate a system had been evolved to ensure that the labour, etc., was charged to the right account, as in the absence of an elaborate checking system mistakes could easily be made. It was also pointed out that the council had purchased several new trucks to do the carting, which presumably would not have been required normally, and which presumably would be paid for by the general ratepayers. Following allegations that certain narties were trying the ghoulish practice of helping themselves to other people’s money while their attention was distracted by the war (ft happened during the Great War), It was recognised that as it appeared to be a case of “ a city divided against itself,” and “the price of liberty is eternal vigilance," a vigilance committee was selected by the various ratepayers’ associations, which appointed an accountant who had access to all records, including the time sheets of the borough employees. After this there were no more com: plaints.

I do not know how many of the points aforementioned correspond with local happenings, but I am handing them on in the hope that the local ratepayers may profit by the experience of others.— l am etc A VISITOR FROM MARS. ’’ Hamilton, March 7.