A REJECTED PETITION.

Evening Star, Issue 19788, 11 February 1928, Page 11

A REJECTED PETITION.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —A demand was made in the feml of a petition from (lie residents on the higher levels of the Anderson’s Bay district for the remedying of the inadequate water supply, but liio City Council has decreed that the demand was not drawn up in language suitable fo brim; before it as a public petition, so on the back of saraa can be written “ refer to drawer.” The demand was couched in language' that showed a diro stress of circumstances at the Bay. No water, except for about four or live hours per day for the, last few weeks, is sufficient reason for any citizens to draw up a demand for a remedy. The Bay is u bugbear, perhaps, but tha collection of full rates is not. Why is tho money from the rates utilised for other less urgent matters when a good water supply is one of the most essential assets of a city? The proposal to build a town hall at the cost of £IOO,OOO (more or less) was rejected by the ratepayers, but the council has overridden tho ratepayers and has contracted for the completion of same. 1 ask you, sir, which is the greater necessity: a good water supply or a new town hail? Further, how much of tho rates collected on the Bay properties is spent in the district? Have any of tho councillors had-the pleasure (?) of walking from the car terminus to the cemetery on a wot day? The road and footpath (where visible) are a disgrace to the city, to say nothing of the inconvenience to pedestrians. ” Camouflage ” was an admirable tactic in the war, but why is it used by the council to throw out a petition that amounted to a demand for a redress of the shocking state of affairs that any council should lake a pride in remedying?—l am, etc., A. Thomas. February 11.