BOROUGH OFFICE LOAN.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVI, Issue 4860, 3 August 1925, Page 2

BOROUGH OFFICE LOAN.

£Td the Editor!.

Sir, —1 was pleased tp see by leading .article in the'last issue ot ypur I paper that you approved, supported, and urged the erection of npw bor-1 ough council chambers, and also made I reference to .the Mayor’s circular giv-1 ing terms and conditions of the foan. I For any sane ratepayer to vote against the proposal would only go to show that he (or she) did not make an honest attempt to find out why It should be supported. Surely the Maymis tb be congratulated upon propounding a scheme whereby the borough can obtain Its own offices without the necessity of increasing the present I rates, and avoid paying rent to an absentee landlord. Those opposed to the loan are surely animated by some petty personal grievance or jealousy which should not concern a ratepayer. Of course the £BB from the I surplus of the Water revenue could be spent in other directions, but tor what I better purpose than that suggested ini the circular? It is absolutely bad businass. and ridiculous for the ratepayers to be paying out £52 a year in rent when this can be so easily avoided and used for their benefit. Tb turn the proposal down (and I cannot see this happening) would only mean that we would be “as you were,” and the town would be deprived of an additional building for which the interest and sinking fund are provided for in so simple a manner. In so- far as tne reads, footpaths, etc., are concerned, the £BB would out help these, as they are provided for by special loan already authorised for the purpose, and the work bf improvement is tp be undertaken almost immediately. The amount intended to be borrowed is small, yet sufficinet, and the site, an excellent one of no extra cost to the ratepayers, has been lying vacant quite long enough. For the sake of the prestige of our town I sincerely hope the proposal will be carried unanimously at t,he poll on Wednesday next. G. P. DE CASTRO.

’ In your issue of Friday last I read with interest a letter signed “Ratepayer.” The writer referred tp the proposed loan of £2OOO for municipal offices and the Mayor’s statement tjiat ‘ no rate would be collected” to repay the same, provision for. repayment of interest and sinking fund being made out of the water surplus of £3OO a year. Is “Ratepayer” aware that a loan for £6OOO was carried pn December 17, 1924, for the purpose of extra water mains and reticulation within the borough? We have the borough circular of that date to refer to, stating that this- amount “would net be collected in rates” also, as the wuter account was showing a net profit of £3OO a year, and the interest and sinking fund on the £6OOO would come out of this surplus fund. If this further loan is carried on August 5 it means that the whole of these two loans, £BOOO iii all, is to come out of surplus water, funds. Can it be done without collecting the rate, tp xvjiich the ratepayers arc pledging, their homes and property ? ANOTHER RATEPAYER.

Sir,—From a circular issued by His Worship the Mayor We are informed that the loan for the proposed new municipal buildings will not cost <he ratepayers anything. This, of course, is an absurdity. The proposal as set forth' calls for £2OOO, which no doubt is only an estimate of .the cost of th& building. There is no assurance that this amount is the limit to be expended. Nothing is said about fittings and furniture, except that the present ones are insufficient: hence, it would appear that further money from revenue will be required for accessories. The principal objection to the proposed loan is the fact that it is going to cc-st ratepayers £l4O per annum for 36 36 yeans, or £5llO, which is to be taken from revenue. His Worship’s circular states that a rate for the loan will not be collected. This may be so during his term of office, but if one of his successors happens tb think otherwise the ratepaeyrs. will have no option but to pay. ■ In any case the statement is somewhat rash, as it covers a period of 36 36 years. Again, is the loan of £2OOO to embrace cost of excavating the site? If so, the balance left will not be sufficient tb erect a building to impress either ratepayers or visitors to our town. If, bn the other hand, revenue has to bear this, cost, plus extra fitting and other incidental sundries, then those unfortunate residents in back streets who have had to put up with mud and slush roads since the inception of the borough may hope in vain for relief. A RATEPAYER.