THE HAURAKI PLAINS COUNTY LOANS.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4368, 20 January 1922, Page 2

THE HAURAKI PLAINS COUNTY LOANS.

Both Proposals Rejected by Ratepayers

Defeat May Be Turned Into Victory

(EDITORIAL.)

Hauraki Plains County ratepayers rejected both loan proposals submitted to them on Wednesday. The County machinery loan, on which a threefifths majority was required, was lost by less than half a dozen votes, and the Turua-Netherton district roads loan was likewise turned down. The County proposal appears to have been defeated not by apathy, but by opposition, and to some extent by a minority of the ratepayers listening to sound without sense. The polling was good, and had the decision depended on a bare majority the proposals would have been carried easily. However, the County loan poll is lost; having let that grim fact sink in, the next thing to do is to plan a constructive line of action for the future. The members of the Council, by they unanimous and hearty decision to limit the expenditure to £lO,OOO until such time as the financial position of the farmers improves, have clearly shewn that they desire to make the burden upon the ratepayers as light as the circumstances will permit; the fact that some £9OOO is owing in the form of overdue rates of various kinds is another proof of the same considerate intentions, and the fact ©f the poll being lost by a narrow majority on a three-fifths basis should not cause them to alter their outlook. It is true that prior to the poll the ratepayers were told that, failing the carrying of the proposal, the general rates would be substantially increased; this was good diplomacy, but it would be bad politics and bad practice if there is a reasonable alternative available —which we submit does exist. The threat of an increased general rate reminds one of Robert Burns’ caustic and curious lines, “Hell is but a hangman’s whip to hand the wretch to order.” The “hell ’ in the County case is the increased general rate, and the “wretch ’ is the unfortunate dairy farmer who is at his wits ends to find out how to be solvent on a progress payment of 9d per lb for butter-fat produced on high-pric-ed multiple-mortgaged land, and with little hope of any substantial addition to the first payment. But still the hard, cold fact remains—the Council must have command of approximately £lO,000, and that in the very near future. Firms with whom commitments have been made have been wondrous kind, but they cannot be expected to stand out of their money indefinitely; ex isting roads must be maintained in some sort of passable condition ; administration expenses must be met, since a county council cannot “shut up shop ’ and still remain in existence; the overdraft stands somewhere between £7OOO and £BOOO, so there is no room for easement in that direction. Let us consider the one and only alternative. Local bodies have the power to borrow, without taking a vote of the ratepayers, a sum sufficient to wipe out their overdrafts. The Hauraki Plains County Council, for a pertinent example, could endeavour to make arrangements to pay off all its liabilities and then raise a loan to abolish its overdraft. The repayment of such loan, out of which the first year’s interest and sinking fund would come, could be spread over a period of years, as in the case of an ordinary loan. It may be objected that a local body which adopts this procedure cannot again have an overdraft for a period of ten years afterwards, but as the proposed new Local Bodies Finance Act provides that all local bodies must wipe out their overdrafts within a period of seven years, and thereafter can not have an overdraft greater than the sum of the previous year’s general rate, the adoption of the loan .measure of abolition of overdraft by the Hauraki Plains County Council would not cause any great inconvenience. Such a measure would also do away with the necessity of taking stringent action in respect to present overdue rates in cases of undoubted financial straits. Admittedly, the remedy proposed is an extraordinary one, but it is legal, and is suggested in order to meet an extraordinary situation. The inability of the Council to incur another overdraft within the next decade may prove a blessing in disguise; fresh loan proposals could be framed at a more opportune time; in one way and another the present defeat may be turned into a victory.

THE TURUA-NETHERTON PROPOSAL. Perusing the detailed figures of the Turua-Netherton Roads loan proposal, one must come to the conclusion that the ratepayers in the proposed town district area of Turua voted fairly solidly against the loan, evidently considering that they will secure better results under a commotown board. The general history

of both town boards and boroughs throughout the Dominion does not justify such a view. Nevertheless, those who must pay a share towards the fees of the piper have quiie a right to have some say in the calling of the tune. The prep >.”>cd town district will need good out-dis-trict roads for trad? purposes, not only have the prospects of securing good communications been jeopardised, or at least postponed to the far-distant future, but a powerful bond of interest between the residents of the township area and those of. the outlying districts has been irretrievably snapped. The farming community outside Turua will, in all likelihood, join in with a future County scheme. It is now incumbent upon the opponents of the roading scheme in Turua to formulate a scheme of their own, which, it is hoped, will meet with better success than the comprehensive one they have so implacably shattered.

DETAILS OF THE POLLING. ("Gazette” Staff Reporter.} The proposal of the Hauraki Plains County Council to borrow £3u,6oi) for purposes of installing up-to-date ma - ’ chinery and erection of council chambers has again been rejected by the ratepayers by a small margin l of three votes—397 for and 269 against a three-fifths majority being required. The intention to borrow £33,000 for a permanent roading scheme in a special rating area in the Turua- riding was also vetoed by the Turua ratepayers by six votes, 51 votes being cast for and 43 against. The following are the details of the voting:

This' is the second occasion bn which the machinery loan has, been submitted and rejected. On the previ,-> ous occasion the voting was as follows : For the Proposals 335 Against the Proposals 233 Total 568 The voting on Wednesday was heavier than previously, 666 Votes being recorded! on this occasion ,as against >568 on the last. In some cases there was ,a marked decrease in votes, Ngatea being prominent in this respect. Last time 96 votes were cast for and 48 against, while this year the number for has decreased remarkably. In Waitakaruru the votes have increased, the objectors having gained considerable ground. From the above analysis of the votes it can be seen that Patetonga and Turua (proposed town district) are the chief objectors to the loan. Patetonga’s objection is probably that the voters anticipated that were the loan carried they would not receive a fair portion of the benefits, in that the machinery Would most likely be used mainly in other portions of the county. In Turua the voters can be divided into two classes —the farmers, and the residents in the town board area. A glance at tlhe results from the Huirau Road and Turua booths indicate how each section voted. The town district people were evidently prejudiced against the loan on account of the formation of a town board being in sight, and being just a little suspicious of being doubly rated.

The Turua townspeople also voted solidly against the Turua permanent roading scheme, while at Huirau Road the Voters were more emphatic that it. should be carried. 'A threefifths majority, however, was required, and it was si,x votes short qfl the number.

THE MACHINERY LOAN. For. Against. Ngatea — 66 53 Turua — 22 43 Kopuarahi 4'5 14 Huirau Road 46 9 Kerepee'hi 141 5 Netherton 57 10 Tahuna __ 10 13 Patetonga 28 51 Kaihere — 30 5 Waitakaruru 48 31 Pipirpa __ 18 26 Thames 5 6 Paeroa 8 3 Totals 397 269 TURUA ROADS LOAN. For. Against. Turua — — 16 35 Huirau Road 33 5 Thames — 2 3 — —' Totals 51 43