THE REPLY—A FLAT CONTRADICTION.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 815, 17 March 1910, Page 2

THE REPLY—A FLAT CONTRADICTION.

The following is Mi Roydhouse V. reply : No smell from sewers. There has not been a single case of typhoid in the borough since the drainage system was installed, in fact there is very little sickness of any kind. The drainage scheme is an absolute success in every way.’’ Further comment is useless. Our only regret is that “Advocate of Good Water” did not append his real signature. —Ed. H.J

[to the editor.] Sir,— Re water and drainage scheme. In your sub-leader of the 15th inst. you ask what sound arguments have been adduced against the scheme, and answer the question yourself —“none.’' But as a ratepayer I feel that I can offer a few reasons why the proposed loan should be deferred for further consideration. I would warn property owners that the extra burden and interest on this loan of ,£20,000 for experimental purposes will have a disastrous effect on the value of their properties, as the burden of rates increase, so must the burden of rents increase, and the unfortunate worker will suffer, it will fall heavily on those with large families who can ill afford to pay increased rents. It is all twaddle to say that rates will only increase slightly; the total revenue from rates last year was ,£843 5s 4d. The amount required for this scheme is showing an increase of at least double the present rates, and who is to pay this enormous increase ? Surely the smaller holders will not be gulled into the belief that they will not have to pay their fair share of this burden, and further, we have no guarantee that the amount stated will complete the work, and you will have no guarantee that you will get the water. It is merely experimental, and surely ratepayers have not

forgotten ths experiment at the triangle, ancf '.the cost. What would failure spell to the ratepayers where ,£20,000 is involved, surely that alone is a sound argument. The small holders who have been told that their rates will not be increased have not been told that it will cost them £25 to put the water and drainage pipes, etc., into their premises, which sum would pay their rates for at least 20 years. Again, the estimate of the engineer is doubtful, and should be confirmed by another reliable engineer before we commit ourselves to such a huge expenditure. lam very much in favour of a reliable water scheme, but not this experimental business, which might mean failure in the end, and then where does the unfortunate ratepayer come in, as once having put our hand to the plough for this ,£20,000 loan, the work must be completed, no matter what the cost. It is a well-known fact that few schemes of this kind have ever been completed for the engineer’s estimate, and the danger here is that this scheme may eventually cost the ratepayers more than a reliable supply of good water from Shannon. And last, what guarantee have the ratepayers got from the engineer for the successful completion of this work, or will he enter into a bond to do so? I think not, and no sensible business man would. —I am, etc.,

A. 1). Ct.rmktt, Foxton, i6th March, 1910.

[We agree with our correspondent that in order to further eulig hlen certain people it would have been well to have deferred the present loan proposals. Statements contained above would never have been made had the writer a fuller knowledge of the subject. To call the scheme an experimental one and to ask the engineer to enter into a bond that it will be carried out for the sum stated is either a little joke on the part of our, esteemed correspondent or else a grave reflection upon the intelligence and expert knowledge of the engineer whose reputation is at stake. Is it reasonable or fair to suppose that he would deliberately set himself out to deceive or mislead ratepayers. If he has misled them he has erred on the side of over rather than underestimating the cost of -the scheme. That the loan, it carried, will have a “disastrous v effect on the value of property ” as set out by our correspondent and “press heavily on the’ working man with a large family,’'people who have carefully studied the subject will refuse to believe. Contrast the comforts of a home and surroundings connected with water and drainage, and one minus these benefits, then add the extra cost to the former and which side of the balance will carry the weight of disaster ? For answer, ask any one who has lived under both conditions. Our correspondent refers to the poor working man! Is he really in earnest when he talks about increasing the burdens ot the working man with a large family, or is his heart bleeding for the man who, if the poll is carried, will be called upon, and can well afford, but stubbornly objects to pay an increased rate^ Is he aware of the fact that in a large number of cases the ooor working man, or, let us say small holder, will not be called upon to pay an increase in rates at all ? and in a still greater number of cases the increase will be infinitesimal to the small holder ! Let our correspondent rather tell the poor working man that he is now paying a rate for a disgusting and obsolete sanitary system —that should be condemned by law in ’ every municipality —and which rate, based, on the present valuation, is even now in many instances more than he will be called upon to pay if the loan is carried. This point is beyond dispute. Further, our correspondent is decidedly inconsistent in regard to his brief on behalf of the “working man with a large family,’’ for while he deprecates the increase of rates for the present loan, he would willingly commit them to a still greater increase for the Shannon scheme. Let us again correct him ; he says last year’s total revenue from rates was - ss 4d, whereas they were 8d ! He also says that the cost of connection to each house would be £25. Again he is in error. On the word of the engineer the average cost would be and we have authority to say that an experienced contractor is prepared to make all house connections in the area at is per foot added to the cost of necessary equipment, The engineer’s estimate for connections is based on a cost of is 6d per foot. Further, why did . he not inform the “working man 1 with a large family” that the Mayor stated that in order to assist him to connect with the system the cost would be spread over a period of 10 years ! The other statements contained in the above are purely speculative. —Ed.HJ