BOROUGH LOAN PROPOSALS.

King Country Chronicle, Volume VII, Issue 514, 2 November 1912, Page 6

BOROUGH LOAN PROPOSALS.

RATEPAYERS' MEETING. THE COUNCIL DIVIDED. MOTION TO RECONSIDER CARRIED. A meeting of ratepayers, convened by Major Lusk for the purpose of again discussing the loan proposals of the borough, was held in the Town Hall on Wednesday evening. There was a large attendance, the hall being well filled. The chair was occupied by the convener, who explained the object of the meeting and called for a motion for discussion. Mr Boddie proposed the following motion: —

"That this meeting of ratepayers regrats that the Borough Council chose to disregard the wishes of the ratepayers as expressed by practically unanimous resolutions at the public meeting held on the 24th inst., and again respectfully request the council to withdraw the present proposals with a view to bringing forward such amended proposals as will be acceptable to the general body of the ratepayers, and in terms of the resolutions passed at last meeting." The speaker, in introducing the subject, referred to the statement made by the Mayor concerning "fireworks," "and "teaching the council its business." Mr Boddie said he had no desire to stir up strife, but when he arrived at the decision that action was necessary in the interests of the town, he never hesitated. No matter how his action might be misconstrued, he was content so long as he satisfied his own conscience. Referring to the last ratepayers' meeting the speaker briefly detailed what had transpired thereat, and emphasised that the • meeting had passed definite motions unanimously. He said the ratepayers were fully entitled to consider those definitely expressed desires would be carried out, instead of which we had the experience of seeing the council attempting to force cn to the ratepayers a proposal they had requested to have amended. The councillors were making a serious mistake in attempting to force, while such was entirely unnecessary. Probably not two men or women in the town wished to hamper the council in carrying out its work. It was, however, a most unfavourable time to borrow, and everywhere people and institutions were financing as little as possible in the hope of shortly having a more settled money market. It had been stated that as the present council was going out of office shortly it was its duty to raise a big loan so that the new council would be able to carry on a pro-gressive-policy. He was decidedly of opinion that the new council would fail to appreciate anything more than that the financing powers of the council had bepn unwarrantably pledged by its predecessors, and the new council was entering office with its hands tied. That was in case the loan was successfully floated. He did not think it would be. The speaker urged the ratepayers to regard the matter from the private business standpoint. He was convinced that not one of the councillors would act in such a manner if the matter was one of private business. He deprecated the übstinacy which would not admit a mistake and regard the voice of the people. There was nothing undignified in the council reconsidering the matter at the request of the ratepayers. He had sufficient confidence in the council to believe if the present meeting endorsed the action of last meeting a majority of the councillors would be found in favour of giving effect to the motion. A fundamental principle of democracy was at stake, and the people should affirm that principle. It was a question of whether the council was to rule the people regardless of the people's wishes, or whether the people were to rule the council. He had no fear of the outcome, but trusted to the good sense and moderation of the council to do the correct thing. Mr E. Martin seconded the motion. He agreed with the trover that it was a bad financial time, and it would be highly iniudicious to pledge the ratepayers for three years ahead. He considered the action of the council should be thwarted in toto in the interests of the ratepayers.

Cr Falwasser said he was personally in favour of the big loan and would probably be called "ratter" for declaring that he considered the wishes of the people, as expressed at the meeting should be carried out. The council was there to represent the ratepayers, and it was a mistake to attempt to force the proposal through. Mr F. Langston supported the motion. He held it was the principles of democracy which were at stake rather than the loan and the people should guard their rights sedulously.

Cr Forsyth said they had heard a great deal about flouting the ratepayers and coming to the people with a badly considered scheme. The proposals had b§en before the councillor a month, and had been given extremely careful consideration. With respect to the allocation it would be found that every item was allocated separately, and the various matters were discussed in detail. The only item which occasioned discussion was the bridge and opinion was divided as to whether it should be placed at Sheridan street or Tuupiri street. The people had been clamouring for a bridge for the past year. There was no money for any such purpose, and the reply had been that the bridge would be included in the next loan proposals. The speaker said he was surprised to learn that Cr Sornerville proposed deleting the bridge seeing that he was the councillor who proposed the resolution in connection with the loan for £21,000. Some people had no backbone. The speaker referred to the previous loan when Mr Boddie was Mayor, and said nobody knew what the work carried out by the first council had cost. As to the

necesssity for the loan there was no doubt and when the proposals were considered it was a case of what could be done without. The council had decided only after the most careful consideration. Mr Boddie had raised the question of interest and was taking up the role of financial prophet. He contended that in twelve months' time the rate of interest was just as likely to be higher as to be lower than at present. When the electric light loan was promoted there had been no difficulty in securing the money. It had chased them and offers had been received from three places. The wish was father to the thought with Mr Boddie. A3 to giving the council a blank cheque for £21,000 the council did not want it. The money was all allocated. During Mr Boddie's term of office the blank cheque system had been in vogue. He had been asked to sign blank cheques and had refused. He had supported the loan of £21,000 and would still do so.

Cr Somerville said it was quite evident hn had to again relate the story as to how the motion in connection with the loan proposals came to be moved by him. He repeated what he had stated at the previous meeting to the effect that when he asked tne Mayor if he would accept a motion amending the proposal, he was answered in the negative, and was told that it was better to leave it to the public meeting. Continuing, the speaker said that since the loan had been promoted they, had further informationas to the state of the market. Auckland and Gisborne municipalities had raised loans and had to pay 5 per cent, interest, and li per cent, sinking fund. He was sure Te Kuiti could not borrow on better terms than the towns mentioned, and as the interest and sinking fund together in the Te Kuiti loan was not to exceed 6 per cent, he felt convinced the loan could not be raised. As to "ratting," he felt it was the duty of the council to carry out the wishes of the ratepayers and he had sufficient backbone to state publicly what he considered to be right, and to stick to it. He was prepared to make one of a deputation of councillors to wait upon the Mayor and request that a special meeting of the council to be convened to consider the proposals with a view to giving effect to the wishes of the meeting.

Mr D. J. Young said he thought meetings of this sort should be held at the end of each Mayoral term. That had not been done, but the present meeting should prove beneficial. He supported the £21,000 loan. The town as in the making, and be did not think it worth while taking a poll for less. They had appointed an engineer at a good salary to carry out a programme of works and had done the proper thing. He considered the loan necessary. He endorsed Cr Forsyth's remarks concerning the bridge, the allocations for the works, and the fact that the proposals had been fully and carefully considered by the council in detail. He did not think the last meeting was up against the loan of £23,000, and had the bridge been deleted it would probably have met with approval. As to raising the money they had not yet tried. He was prepared to say the council could get the money. Mr Young was proceeding to advocate the system of rating on unimproved values, but-was called to order by the chairman. He concluded by congratulating the councillors who had stood to their guns in connection with the loan. Mr Trinnear advocated the reconsideration of the proposals by the council and detailed the manner in which the recommendations of the last meeting of ratepayers had been dealt with the special meeting of the council.

Cr Walsh said he had supported the £21,000 loan. As to the council wanting something the ratepayers did not want, he pointed out that thu councillors were ratepayers and as much interested in the progress of the tuwn as any other individual ratepayer. Personally he felt he had to be loyal to the Mayor and consistent in his attitude.

Gr Floyd said there had been much said about the council transacting business in a careless manner. He was not prepared to take that insinuation, as it was not correct. As to the possibilities of raising the loan under the conditions set forth, financial men were equally divided in their estimate of the prospects. Whatever money was raised by the council would be judiciously spent. The proposal in connection with the £21,000 was to spread it over three years, and this he considered a judicious method. As to raising the loan on those conditions they had the example of the electric lighting loan, which only became interest bearing as the money was appropriated. He considered the scheme necessary and would support the £21,000 loan.

The chairman said he had been connected with the council since its inception, and was sure the council had always endeavoured to do the best for the borough. He referred to the allocations of the first loan, and stated they could be seen at the council office. With respect to the present proposal the council was not unanimous. He had opposed the big loan from the start, and advocated a reasonable annual loan. This, he considered wise in view of the state of the money market. He did not think the big loan could be raised as projected, and the result would be holding up the town improvements for the season. At the special meeting of the council on Saturday night a carefully compiled schedule of necessary work had been -submitted providing a £9500 loan. He and Cr Tammadge had supported that proposal, recognising it as giving effect to the wishes of the ratepayers. Cr Forstyh, in explanation of the allocations of the first loan, produced the ballot paper on which the rate waa taken, showing that the amounts were not definitely stated for all the works. .

The chairman said a schedule had been prepared in addition, and was to be seen at the council office. Mr Boddie, in replv, deprecated the introduction of personalities, and the raking up of dead issues, which had been indulged in by Cr Forsyth. He himself endeavoured to keep free from that sort of thing, but no sooner did Cr Forsyth take the platform than he commenced hia old tactics. Some men were so consiituted by nature that they could not refrain from personalities, and he presumed Cr Forsyth was one of them. As to the reference to the allocations of the first loan, both Cr Forsyth and the chairman were correct. The reason the allocations of the first loan had not been too stringent was that they were then starting from the foundation. He instanced the railway alterations which necessitated a departure from the original intention as the traffic to tha railway had been diverted to Carroll street, and that thoroughfare had to be metalled accordingly. They were in a very different position today, and a stricter adherence to allocations was possible. The £I2OO in the proposal which had been diverted from the bridge had only been allocated generally to the eastern side of the river. It should have been more clearly defined. As to raising the proposed amount the Mayor stated they had only to go to Australia and could easily get the money. He personally was satisfied it was a much more difficult matter than the Mayor asserted. One of the last loans raised was the small loan for the municipal buildings and he, as Mayor, was acquainted with all the circumstances. They had tried every financial institution in the country and were faced with the position of having to accept a temporary scheme whereby 75 per cent, of the money was advanced ori debentures by the Bank. The lighting loan came immediately afterwards and by a stroke of exceptionally good luck, they were able to get the money from a sum of £IO,OOO which had been sent from Australia for investment. Both the lighting loan and the money for the Municipal Building were got at the same time from the same people. Replying to Mr D. J. Young's remarks, the speaker said Mr Young had told them the council had engaged an engineer at a good salary and appeared to consider that a reason for going in for a big loan—as a justification of their action in engaging the engineer. There had been no serious attempt on the part of the advocates of the big loan to deal with what had been put before them. The people who were opposing the council's scheme were just as much in favour of a loan as the other side but the councillors were acting on the principle that they were there to do just as they liked, and not consider the voice of the ratepayers at all. He felt sure if the council was not guided by sountier advice and wiser counsels tha proposals woud be counted out on polling day. The motion was then put and carried by a considerable majority.

A motion was then proposed by Mr M. J. Jonea to the effect that in the event of the council still deciding to disregard the wishes of the ratepayers as voiced by the meeting those present should use every legitimate mean to defeat the loan and pledged themselves to vote against it. This was seconded by Mr Trinnear and on being put to the meeting was carried.