NO RUBBISH COLLECTION

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 3, Issue 273, 19 February 1941, Page 5

NO RUBBISH COLLECTION

Perhaps the best ventilation ••of the pros and cons relative to the rubbish collection question in Whakatane took place at the "Chamber of Commerce last week, when the matter was raised and •given full discussion. As a result the meeting decided to recom-i mend the Borough Council that • a service such as that instituted in other towns be introduced!, at a cost to the householders of approximately 10/- annually.

The question was raised by Mr C. Kingsley-Smith who stated that at some time or other in their development all towns in the Dominion had been the same problem. All had' seen the necessity for providing the service in the interests of cleanliness and hygiene. If they had not done so there would be no rubbish collection in the country and no progress would have been made in this very vital connection. Whakatane with hundreds of precedents yet hesitated, or found difficulty in introducing the service, and ho would like to know why, if it could be worked so effectively in other and similar centres, it could not be launched here. In some respects all who gave* the matter some thought were agreed with the Borough Council, that it would cost money. That could i: not be avoided but in many towns of Whakatane'si size a free service (weekly) was, provided, and even if this were not possible here, he was sure that householders would be only too glad to pay a reasonable fee annually to have it instituted, rather than put up with the horvrible state of affairs already existing.

Position in Oilier Towns,

Quoting from a questionnaire, -which he had submitted) to other towns in the South Auckland he said that 12 out of 14 had instituted the service, the two exceptions being Whakatane and Opotiki. In Te Aroha, Morrinsville and To Puke a free service (weekly with the exception of Te Puke) had been in vogue for some years,, at a cost to the councils of £150 and £i 25 respectively. In Tauranga, Cambridge, Rotorua, Waihi, Te Awamutu, Hamilton. Te Kuiti, Matamata weekly service was given the cost ranging from £154 to £645 annually, to meet tvhich expense a rate was levied or a collection made from the householders. liTsome centres standardised containers were used,, such as in Te Awamutu where the collection was made compulsory, and the ratepayers met a special rate of 12s 6d. In Tauranga :the rate was 10s 6d, in Rotorua 10s '(bi-weekly 20s) and in Hamilton "householders paid 19s per annum. In Cambridge the cost was met by a charge of Is per container. In most instances the work was carried out by Borough trucks, but in a few . : cases tenders were called.

Cost to Whakatane. The speaker maintained that with "525 householders in Whakatane, and drawing an ,-iverage from the cosls over the above list, the cost should not exceed £250 for Whakatane, which would work out at 10s per year to every home or under 3d per load for a weekly service. He urged that the borough move immediately in the matter and moved that a recommendation go forward that a compulsory service be instituted at a cost somewhere in the vicinity of the amount quoted. Mr Brabant was in complete agree--jnent. out that the rubbish left about the town was a direct cause for the rat nuisance. Tenants Would Pay. Mr T. A. Bridger, in seconding, said he was averse to any increase in the rates, but felt sure that the tenants would be only too glad to pay a small figure annually to receive the service. He condemned the. need for continually having to bury rubbish in a limited area. Mr P. Dixon considered the service should have been brought into being years ago. The rubbish was without a doubt the reason for the rats and he strongly favoured the •compulsory system. Mr Creeke considered to do the work properly it would be nccessaiy «£p introduce standardised tins.

WHAKATANE'S UNENVIABLE POSITION CHAMBER OF COMMERCE DISCUSSION

RECOMMENDATION TO BOROUGH COUNCIL

Mayor's Views. "I can assure you gentlemen, that the Borough Council has given this question thei fullest consideration," j said the Mayor, Mr B. S. Barry., "and its not the simple matter that it seems. As far back as 1938, a contract had been received for £360, which was more than the council could afford. Since then costs have risen, and the Borough Foreman who went into it recently estimated the cost to be 7s per week." Mr Barry said there were three methods whereby the cost could be met. One, by raising the general rate, two, by increasing the sanitary charge, and three, by making a levy on householders: He" was against any increase in the general rate owing to the heavy burden already carried. To meet the foreman's estimate it | would mean another %d in the £, or to the average businessman another £3 14s 3d per year. With reference to increasing the sanitary rate, this would be fair enough providing the person benefitting paid, but it was the landlord who paid, and he had no legal moans of passing it on to the tenant. The thiid method would be introduced to-mor-row if it could be certain of collecting a levy from householders, but this also was not legally possible, and a tenant if he so wished could

refuse to pay. Press Criticised. Mr Barry criticised a leader recently appearing in the BEACON referring to the quarterly collection as nothing more than a 'junk 1 collection. It was weak and inopportune lie said, particularly when the council was doing its best to meet the position. The quarterly collection was for tins and bottles and sucli like, the perishable rubbish could be buried and would enrich the sandy soil on some of the sections. Mr Boale was of the opinion that rubbish collection was just as important as a sanitary service and pointed out the difficulty with which he had to contend in connection with his shop. Before the motion was put, Mr Kingsley-Smith in reply to Mr Barry, said he made no apologies for the recent leader, and as yet had had no real reason to change his views. To institute a quarterly service was not grappling with the real evil brought about by having perishable rubbish lying about. The chairman aslced members not to be reticent about discussing the matter. He was sure that the present debate had done an immense amount of good. The motion was then put to tlie meeting and carried.