Dear Sir,

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 11, Issue 49, 4 July 1947, Page 4

Dear Sir,

OIIOPE RUBBISH COLLECTION Sir, —Your issue for Monday records the rejection by the Whakatane County Council of the proposed weekly rubbish collection at Ohope Beach. The need for this collection is apparently not questioned, nor could it be. by any who have experienced the clearing of a section that has acted as an earlier occupier’s dump, and with no public dump what else can be done with all the tins, bottles, etc., that modern civilised living brings to a home but to leave them for some unfortunate future occupier? To say nothing of the breeding ground afforded to rats which are here in force. They spread disease and destroy property. One of the most effective means of coping with them is to remove their feeding and breeding ground (in this case, our rubbish piles), and the cost of this rubbish collection would be money well spent in safeguarding health and in preservation of property, which fact those property owners directly concerned will recognise. The reason given for rejecting the collection of rubbish is that old familiar one of finance; that with 100 householders it would be too expensive, £3 10s a year per householder. One wonders just when the County Council checked up on the number of householders at Ohope. In your same issue you refer to the Power Board supplying 211 consumers at Ohope, with a number of new consumers not yet connected. That sounds much more* convincing that the County Council's 100 householders, but why, when it comes to rubbish disposal, does the County Council recognise only 100 householders? Such a difference in figures supplied at the same time from two responsible bodies does seem, to say the least, strange, or does it carx*y any significance? Can you tell me? - Yours etc., 211 NOT 100. , Ist July, 1947.