MIRAMAR TRAM LOSSES.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 650, 29 October 1909, Page 3

MIRAMAR TRAM LOSSES.

Sir,—l have read with pleasure Mr. 'A. E. Mabin's sound business letters appearing'for the past" fortnight in lyour 1 issues". There is not the' slightest doubt that Mr. Mabin has a thorough : grasp- of the situation; and that his statements aro absolutely correct,' and his effort to show tho true state of the tramway affairs of the borough is very', much appreciated by the greater majority of . the' ratepayers. The.Mayor's replies-to same are weak and cannot, be supported. In his reply under date October 20 he states: "Questions of Miramar tramway policy have been frequently beforo the public, and were fully considered by ■ tho electors in April last," ' and "No one had proposed any different policy to the, present one.' Now, to show how much value can, be attached to this statement, tho following facts will show:—The last council, for some reason or another, in the closing moments of their career, raised tho fares ou tho Miramar North section only of the system : to 2d., tho result being that the'losses'for, the period run (about a month) wero reduced by ono-, half, but directly they . (the council)' were' returned' again, to office, as four out of six wero(and the Mayor .unopposed),, they lowered, the fare again. Was the fare raised to, get votes? An influential deputation waited on the council early in May,, and asked them to raise , tho fare to 2d. on the Seatoun section," also- issue 30-trip; tickets at Id.: to residents, an d curtail the service, as dozens of cars carry no one, instead of doubling the rates. Yet in the face of this the Mayor reiterates "no one had proposed any different policy to the present one." The suggestions of this deputation were ignored and all that was done in the matter was to approach the Wellington City Council to reduce the car mileago charges, a jpost unreasonable request that anyone possessing the proverbial grain of common sonse would know-must be refused. • I will do the Mayor and councillors the credit of-knowing this themselves. The Wellington City Council is the best "fall back" they have. Tf Wonderland and Labour Day "push" want' a concession on the" fares they are informed it will bo done if the City Council do the same. The Miramar Council know they are quite safe. ' With regard to the Mayor's statement that the electors are behind the prpsent policy of carrying pony racers, golfers, footballers, hockey players, seasiders, Wonderland patrons, etc., at a loss of 2d. per head (or £5000 a year) and shoving the loss on . to the rates of the hundreds of people' who do not' derive the slightest benefit directly or indirectly from' the tramway's, is preposterqns,' in viow of 'the 'fact that tho two recent vacancies in the -council wore filled. by men . (Councillors Muir and Bowie) whose "main plank" was the reduction of the, exorbitant tramway losses, which wero ruining the borough. .Councillor Bowie polled m one booth alone (Worser Bay kiosk) 5!) votes to his opponent's 1, and the Mayor still says the electors are behind his tramway policy. Mr. Mabin gives a number of instances how everything Tigntly chargeable to the tramway account, if it is even in tho proximity of any other work, is charged to the other work' to minimise tho excessive tramway losses; and this means the general rating pays a largo slice of those losses. X" am satisfied if an independent auditor were associated with an engineer to instruct him correctly which is tramway and. which is road, drainage, lighting, etc., tho ratepayers would find that out of their 3d. rato thov wero paying 2d. or more for the pleasuTo of knowing trams were running somewhere in the borough. Will tho Mayor tell us whv the .£SOO. spent on straightening tho tramway track at tho Chinaman's garden was charged to road formation, also what about all tno money (about .£1000) spent on acquiring property (Andrewartha's, etc.), to straighten roads, form drains, and Contts Road Extension, etc., dono within the city boundary, and given to tho,city for nothing, and notchargod to tho, tramway loss account? What about giving the - city some .£10,500 worth of tramway track for ten annual payments, of .£IOSO without interest? This council did not'do all this, but the Mayor and some of the present councillors wero there when these unbusinesslike deals were done. Why'were these losses not debited to the tramway account? The ratepayers have to foot the

interest bill on these sums, and the city has the uso of the money gratis, and tho revenue accruing from the uso of this portion of the track and its improvements. ' The Mayor says the largo arc lamps on the tramway track are for lighting tho borough; if so, why aro not the lamps on the foreshore and other parts of tho borough of tho same typo instead of the "candle-in-the-bottlo" atfairs in uso at present? I may inform the Mayor that tho lights on the tramway track aro to enable tho motorman to see objects on the track and protect tho public against accidents, and incidentally the borough against claims for personal injuries, and even these lights aro too numerous for the sparse habitation along the tramway track itself. I doubt very much if a motorman ever saw anyono on the Miramar 'Flat track.

Miramar has no water supply or drainage, and if tho preseht tramway losses aro sustained (and they must bo unless tho fares are raised and tho service curtailed), the rates will be at least 6d. What inducement is there for auyono to go and settle out here, 4 or 5 miles from town, to pay 6d. for all these discomforts? Tho Mayor does not live there, so he has no personal experience of them, neither do the land syndicates, who simply want to be able to say in their eloquent "dodgers" and advertisements that trams pass the door every few minutes. Tho' extra rates that ttys ultimate owners will have to pay to make the place habitable doesn't concern them. This as the foundation of the Miramar tramway trouble (land speculators versus residents). The land speculator has still tho say, and he reckons that cheap tramway fares sell his land. The •ordinary man in search of a fairly cheap spot, with a bit of land to build his home on, quite overlooks tho rato problem, which, after all, is a very serious item. The people fleeing from •the heavy city rating have created these suburban boroughs with low ratings, and it is tho duty of the mayors and councillors of these boroughs to sec that these low ratings are pre-served,-and not unduly increased by injudicious and incompetent faddish schemes such as the Miramar Council adopt of paying 2d. for everyone, who likes to travel on their cars, converting the borough into a sort of benevolent sanatorium. .

■ Tho Mayor übuses all who suggest a way out of the'tramway financial difficulties, and calls them "discontents," "twopenny-halfpenny ratepayers," accuses them of living in liaraka ,Bay, which, according to the Mayor, is the headquarters of sedition; tells us he'(vide "Times" report'of'council meeting, 15th instant) pays .£6OO in rates (which represents on.present 3d. rate on unimproved value a capital value of .£48,000), and likes it. The writer would like to have .£48,000 worth of property to pay .£6OO on, and he ventures the opinion that,there are other poor ratepayers wishing to change places with the Mayor. . ' The Mayor concludes his letter in your issue of October 21 by calling Mr. A. E. Mabin's letters "crude suggestions for borough finance," and' I will* conclude this by expressing the opinion that if anything can be cruder than the tramway finances of. tho borough he presides over it must be very crudc indeed.—l am, -. -. J . DAVID K. BLAIR. October-'27, 1909. ' \