Untitled

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 3755, 16 February 1928, Page 2

. (To The Editor). Sir, —It was with no 'small amount of surprise that I . read in your issue of Tuesday last, that the Council had agreed to take over the Royal Hall. Now, Sir, I ask what motive prompted the Town Clerk, or by whose authority he entered into negotiations for a lease of the same. Further, to generally discuss the proposition, what authority in law has the Council to sign or be a party to an agreement that becomes a monopoly, under a certain Act. Is it the thin edge of the wedge to raise the prices at the Town Hall? Or if the Town Hall pictures are paying well, why the need to fear the opposition? At a rental of £5 per week and the Council has, I presume, to further add about £BO per year rattes, brings the tofal up to theyicinity of £7 per week. What for? Further, by what means have they the assurance that another firm will not build a hall in the near future? To generalise, have we forgotten the haste and propaganda that was used to urge the ratepayers to sanction tne loan* to rebuild the hall, and have we forgbtten the opposition to the rebuilding of it? Can the Mayor or Town Clerk say that the proposal is a paying proposition? Why saddle the ratepayers with,such an incubus? What does the Mayor and Councillors think the ratepayers are? They demand a return of £7 per year to give a ratepayer water. Can they honestly say the new idea of leasing the Royal Hall is going to benefit the Borough to the extent of £7 per week over and above the present income of the Borough? Further, who is going to maintain, keep in repair, and pay all necessary outlay, and insurance on the new “idea?” I am, Sir, like a lot more ratepayers, fed up with the methods and secrecy adopted in Borough affairs, and I absolutely protest against this latest freak. I have heard the Mayor personally say that he does not answer anonymous criticism.- Well, will he answer this, or perhaps he will prefer to call a meeting of ratepayers, and explain it there. If it is good enough to address the ratepayers at election time as to the reasons why he should be elected,. or the reasons for carrying a loan, is it not also logical to expect the same when there is an outlay of £2,000 spread over the next seven years is concerned. Mr Ratepayer, think it out for yourself. What are you going to .get in return? No doubt like myself, you would like to see a duly audited statement of expenditure and receipts as well as the liabilities of the Council’s newest “baby” published to that you can see just what is being pushed on to you. As I see by the Town Clerk’s statement that the Town Hall pictures are over £7OO in credit, I absolutely fail to see the need of further saddling the ratepayers with a “dud” proposition. Mr Mayor will you please explain the reasons for it publicly at a meeting of ratepayers? —Yours, etc. E. G. MARTIN.

The above letter was referred to the Town Clerk who has replied as follows: —

This deal is the outcome of negotiations initiated by the proprietors of the Royal Theatre nearly three years ago, when the Council made a counter offer of £5 10s per week for four years. This was .published in the Herald on the 14th July, 1925. The present lease is for seven years at a lesser rental, and is quite legal.

When the new Town Hall was built a greater financial responsibility rested on the ratepayers and the present action merely safeguards the position by eliminating opposition for seven years. The Town Hall at present is paying its way as stated, but there can, of course, be no guarantee that another firm will not build a hall in the near future, although it is apparent this is unlikely. On the other hand there was no guarantee that another firm would not take over the Royal if the Council did not, ant a strong opposition backed by the film companies might become a serious matter for the Town Hall.

The matter of prices to be charged for admission remains in the hands of the people which it certainly would not do if the control of both theatres Avere under private control. Monopoly selling in the picture business means monopoly buying, enabling a wider selection of pictures to be screened on more favourable terms than if two shoAVmen are bidding against each other for screening rights.

The proposition cannot fail to appeal to any business man.