The Patea Mail. Established 1875. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1882. THE MAYOR'S SCHEME.

Patea Mail, Volume VIII, Issue 958, 13 November 1882, Page 2

The Patea Mail. Established 1875. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1882. THE MAYOR'S SCHEME.

We hardly know whether to be pleased or disappointed at the Harbour Meeting on Friday. While there was much to gratify one, there was also considerable cause for regret. The want of unity that was apparent, and the assertion of men against measures were to be deprecated as entirely out of place. The time has gone by for one party to work against another for the sake of shewing their superior strength. Victory may lie with the stronger, but the end to be attained will remain as far off as ever. No party, however powerful, can, of itself, deal successfully . with a great matter like this harbour question. Unity of action is imperative, and without that meetings and conferences, though held by the dozen, will end where they began-;—in talk. It must not be supposed, however, that there was no unity of opinion shewn at Friday’s meeting. Far from it, for in the matter of the proposed taxation of a shilling rate, the willingness to submit to it, so cheerfully expressed, was gratifying in the extreme. All were unanimous that harbour works were imperative. As one speaker put it, “ it was a matter of life and death of the Borough.” Wo agree with that sentiment to the letter, and we think that there is hardly a business man in Patea who thinks otherwise. Circumstanced as we are, that is a healthy sign, and may be said to constitute the first step towards the re-commcncement of Harbour improvement. Having shown then our readiness to accept the burden of a harbour rate, we fail to see why an effort should not be made to lighten that burden if possible. Mr Sherwood’s scheme, as reported elsewhere, appears to us to afford a very reasonable prospect of doing away with the necessity for paying a heavy rate. So far as the mere acquirement of the estate is concerned, we think that can be disposed of at once.

We should hardly .imagine Mr Sherwood, or anybody else, would call a meeting together and pnt certain matters before it as feasible unless proper enquiry had been made beforehand. Mr Sherwood told the meeting that it could be done, and we think that may be taken as sufficient for the present. The acceptance of the purchase scheme in itself is quite another affair, and v bt conrse;" about which there arc~bomTd’ to be differences of opinion. One gentleman characterised the scheme as a brilliant one, and the land a most valuable block ; another said that it was drifting sand and comparatively useless. We have not seen the land ourselves, therefore we cannot express an opinion upon its worth. But wo will venture to say that if the majority of it is good, and it can be bought at a low price, it would prove a' splendid investment for the Borough. It is not the present that we must look to but the future. The very works which that property would enable, ns to carry out wobld be the means of greatly increasing the demand for the land, and so enhancing its value. We quite see the argument of the Mayor when he speaks of the difference in'the value of that property in the hands of the Borough as against a private individual. The expenditure in roads, drains, footpaths, &c., which the private owner would have to incur previous to the disposal of the property, would be too large to leave much margin for profit, if it did not involve actual loss. But, in the case of the Borough Council, that would be avoided, as the streets need not be made at once. When it became requisite (o<form them, we have no doubt, the money would be forthcoming. The. town would have grown, and as a consequence the rates would have grown also. With regard to the separation of the land scheme from the rating proposal, we see no particular harm in that. In fact we think it would be better if such were done, because in that case Harbour work will probably be commenced at an earlier date than if we were fighting over the merits' and demerits of the former. The course for the rating part of the proposal is clear; generally speaking all are fully united on that point and willing to pay. Therefore, there is nothing to prevent that being gone on with at once. The acquirement of the estate can follow after, if it were the wish of a majority of the ratepayers that the land should become Borough property, then the Council could well be left to conclude the transaction. Looking at it in the worst light and supposing that the revenue it yielded was only sufficient to pay interest on cost we should not be in any worse position than we were before its purchase, while on tl-.e other hand a very substantial saving to our pockets might, and probably would result. But, whatever decision may be come to, we think the Mayor is entitled to the thanks of the community for his scheme. He has, we believe, brought it forward in the interests of the public, and is therefore deserving of commendation. And there is in the proposal matter vyorthy of the gravest consideration. It should not be thrown lightly ’aside as impracticable when the originator tells us in as plain language as it is advisable to use that it is practicable and most desirable. Of the latter point we leave the public to judge, contenting ourselves with expressing the hope that if a majority think there is “ something in it ” the opposite side will not withhold their assistance towards carrying out the scheme to a successful issue.