LOWER HUTT GAS CONTROVERSY

Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 3, 28 September 1921, Page 8

LOWER HUTT GAS CONTROVERSY

RATEPAYERS’ ASSOCIATION AND THE MAYOR STATEMENT BY MR. RISHWORTH A Dominion reporter yesterday inquired of the .Mayor of Lower Hutt (Mr. IL P.’-Bishworth) what ho thought of the latest move of the Hutt Batepayers’ Protection Association in sending a deputation io the Petono Borough Council on the question of a renewal of tho agreement for the purchase of .gas. “It rather astonished me,” replied Mr. Rishworthi “to read in the Press this morning that a scheme had been submitted to the Petono Borough Council by a deputation of Lower Hutt residents headed by Mr. S. Clendon, for a ■ renewal of tho agreement for the purchase of gas from Petono. 'A message of good-will’ has been forwarded by the Hutt Council on four separate occasions. Birst we offered to pay the Petone Council tho increased cost of coal used for gas for Lower Hutt up to £5O per month, provided that Pctono extended . the existing contract for two years, and gave satisfactory pressure to ensure a full supply of gas. This offer was turned down by Petone. On the second occasion, a further offer was mado by the Hutt to purchase a half-share in the Petono gasworks at an amount to be fixed by independent valuation. This offer was refused. Thirdly, nt a conference between the two councils the Hutt offered to pay ss. per 1080 cubic feet of gas on a sliding scale, subject to review every three months, according to the rise and fall in the cost of coal, 'provided a new agreement were entered upon for seven years; Lower Hutt to for"O the balance of the two years unexpired in the existing contract. This offer was not agreed to iby Petone, who counter-offered at 6s. Bd. per 1000 cubic feet. This would increase Lower Hutt's payments for the next two years by £7500 on tho present consumption. Lastly. on July 19, at a meeting of Hutt councillors it was decided to meet the Petone Council in conference to ascertain whether they were prepared to join in a scheme of joint ownership and control of the gasworks, as recommended by tho Board ,of Trade. The Petono Borough Couilcil did not see lis way to meet in conference, but sent up a committee, which raised objections to the proposed agreement for joint 'ownership and made suggestions which ,were submitted to a special meeting of the Hutt Council. It was then definitely decided bv tho Lower Hutt Borough Council to go on with the scheme [for the erection of their own works]; because of the apparent disinclination on tho part of the Petone Council to make any satiswactory understanding with the Hutt. Tho Hutt Council has never had an offer from the Petone Council on the basis of ss. Gd. pet- 1009 cubic feet. "I think the attitude of this body ot Hutt ratepayers is very extraordinary, and they'are holding themselves up to ridicule b,y making approaches as if they were a ‘ properly corporate body with power to carry out negotiations such as these.' The public can 'be left to judge whether the attitude of the Petone Borough Council is altogether disinterest-

e<l COUNCIL IGNORES~RATEPAYERS’ ASSOCIATION <At Monday night's meeting of .the! Lower Hutt. Borough Council the following resolution was received from the Hutt Batepaycrs’ Protection Association: —“That a letter be ,sent to the Mayor and councillors of the, Lower Hutt Borough Council, directing that said Mayor and councillors shall immediately refrain from further committing the Lower Hutt borough 'in any way whatever in connection mi th the proposedl gas works, as the association intend to hold immediately a public meeting in connection with the matter, and are circulating a petition to obtain the signatures of ratepayers thereto in order to direct the council to purchase a supply of gas from the Petono borough on a basis of 10 per cent, over ascertained manufactured cost a.t the Petone gas works. This offer is in accordance to terms agreed upon by the Petone Borough Council. The agreement is to be made in lieu of the erection of a gas works for the Lower Hutt Borough. Bailing your council agreeing to the aforesaid conditions, then the association and petitioning ratepayers will demand that a poll bo taken.’ Tho association believe, and have every confidence that it will obtain, at the very least, three-quartera of the ratepayer's’ signatures' to their petition.” The Mayor said thnt there was lone weakness in the letter. The council had not been officially notified that such an association had been formed. He was” not going to accept a letter from an unauthorised person, as the tone of the letter was so insolent. He did not intend 1 to take any notice of it. The council should not allow any persons to dictate to them, unless it. was shown that they represented a majority of the ratepayers. They had gone before the ratepayers, and at a poll 555 ratepayers fanctioned tho loan ‘and 198 voted ngninst it Now n email minority would like to unset the poll. Councillor Brassel said that they hart been elected by the ratepayers, and they should take no notice of any minority. He moved that tho letter be received, and no action taken. Councillor Meldruni seconded the motion, which was carried.