RIDINGS DISAFFECTION.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4483, 25 October 1922, Page 2

RIDINGS DISAFFECTION.

■» • Sir, —In your issue of the 20th. inst. Cr. Mayn h,as a very interesting reply to my letter of the 4th. Everyone who attended the Netherton meeting knows -that I was not in error, the debit I quoted being the figures supplied by the cbunty clerk, and therefore the error was his, not mine. Take the general account, which, according to your correspondent, Netherton finds one-third. Does he consider this a fair proposition, taking the total valuation of this county ? The trouble has been in connection with the nonratepaying lands. The majority of the councillors do not. pay a general rate, I quite understand that the Council’s expenditure has been strictly legal, but it does not necessarily follow that it has been equitable. I rather like -your correspondent’s remark that “You cannot have your cake and eat it, too” ; the trouble has been that Netherton has been finding the cake, but the other fellow has had the pleasure of eating it, and not even leaving us the crumbs. Re Wilson’s Road : I have not distorted the figures ; they are the Council’s own. The tremendous amount of stumping should have been done for half the money, and same remark applies' to the drain. No one with any knowledge of drainage work would have put a drain through a ■sand bank in the mahner this one was done. Perhaps your correspondent is not aware of the fact that one of our riding members was so dis- ■ satisfied with the progress shown by the county workmen on this formation that he got the county 'chairman to come and see for himself what was going on. Formation work on Fisher’s Road .was done by the Council when they had a trial before purchasing the tractor'at £2 5s per chain, but when their own workmen took charge the cost rose to £6 per chain. Your correspondent also says that nine miles of roads were not distroye.l. Had he been living here he would have known that my statement was an absolute fact.

He asks, “Would I question the Council’s right to fix a general rate, and where -would I suggest drawing t'he. line ?” I do not question their right jo levy a general rate, but ! would draw the line .against .spending money out of the general fund for cue benefit of ridings which do not pay a general fate. In conclusion I would like to refer to the bridge question. Your cprresponffent’s information is very interesting. He enumerates five bridges which arq necessary within the Patetonga riding, and then wonders why the Netherton ratepayers object. The Netherton ratepayers paid for their own bridge, and If they want another in the distant future they will be quite prepared to pay for it, too. If Patetpnga Pipiroa, Waitakaruru, and Kopuarahi want outlet bridges- to Thames let them pay for them. Paeroa is our centre, and we have all the outlets we are able to pay for at present. We have the sword of Damocle? hanging over pur heads in the river improvement scheme. Would Cr. Mayn be in favour of making this’ a charge against the general county fund, as it is likely to press very hard on the ratepayers in the Netherton riding ? - .

A BALKAN RESIDENT Netherton, October 21, 1922.

Sir, —I have been accused of personal bias against our councillors. Such is not the cast; I am only against their public policy. I don't know whether your correspondent has been. delegated by the Hauraki Plains County Council to reply to “A Balkan Resident’s” lette'r or not, but I think he has no* thoroughly acquainted himself with the facts connected with Turua; neither does he read your, contemporary, the Thames Star, for he would have a better 'knowledge of us, and not, have used so many terminological inexactitudes. We never use anybody; neither will we allow ourselves to be' used without protest.

He tries to make us believe that a well-conducted business is only an illusion, and the magician’s wand is kept in the council chamber. How is it overhead charges for the Plains are so much greater per ratio than any other county of similar r,ati'ng value ? He says we are quibbling about nothing. If a bridge costing approximately £6O 000 and a roading scheme on the top of that is nothing, he might be obliging enough- to tell us what something stands for. None of pur friends ever tell us how it came about for our chairman to be in conference with the Thames Borough Council discussing Kirikiri bridge six weeks after their coming info being, or how Puriri bridge was killed pr what inducements were offered to kill it or who killed it. Our County Council never had a bridge scheme any more than they have a definite road scheme. It is one big manoeuvre with all cards under the table, and now you are checkmated consternation in the Thames camp reigns supreme, and they are looking round for an overlooked pawn. Won’t it be interesting if they find one ? Does Cr, Mayn imply that we hitched on to the chairman ? If so, I understand he is going to be scratched. And does he wish us to infer, when a half truth is knocking lound, that they hand it to the county clerk to phrase it and dress it to look like a, whole one ? Would any body of reasonableminded men ever have committed the ratepayers to so much expenditure as this council lias done, and are doing, without first getting to know the feelings' of the ratepayers? We in Turua are the heaviest rated of all the ridings, and are the most brutally treated. We are quite willing to take over all the liabilities of the wharf, but we would like to know how aU the revenue for tine past 40 years was spent. We never asked Thames to nurse us or dole out favours. We have to pay for all we get. but we dont’ want to pay for a phantom benefit.

I quite agree; with, thelast paragraph of our councillor friends letter, judging by the latest reports from, Thames.—S-W-M., Tur.ua,