The Telephone. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE POVERTY BAY STANDARD. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. GISBORNE, TUESDAY, JULY 29.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 195, 29 July 1884, Page 2

The Telephone. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE POVERTY BAY STANDARD. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. GISBORNE, TUESDAY, JULY 29.

To-night the disagreeable subject arising out of the excessive foreshore valuations will again come before the Board, when it is to be hoped that the whole of the members will see fit to attend and assume.the responsibility which their position entails upon them. There is undoubtedly ample grounds to justify the remarks which fell from several members at the last meeting of the Board, to the effect that some of their number invariably made it a practice to stay away from the meetings whenever any subject of importance came on for decision—notably the Common-Shelton difficulty—evidently because they wished to avoid compromising themselves in any way, and that they seldom were seen in their seats except when they had some special 11 axe to grind.” Unfortunately this censure is justly deserved, and ample demonstration of this fact may be found by a glance at the printed reports of the Board’s proceedings during the last few months, where it will be seen that certain members’ names are generally conspicuous by their absence in some instances and remarkable by their presence in others. Such a mode of procedure is entirely unworthy those who have sought and accepted the suffrages of their fellow townsmen and also unjust to their fellow members, and the sooner they make way for more conscientious men the better for their own reputations, and the ratepayers interests. We hope these remarks, added to those of the members at the last meeting will have the effect of bringing a full attendance to-night, and that the responsibility which attaches to thi? vexed question may be equally borne by the whole Board, so that the public may be enabled to judge of the merits of each of their representatives. We have before attempted to show that the whole blame in this matter does not lie solely at the door of the Engineer, but mainly with the Board itself for placing such a ridiculously low upset price upon the land. By doing so they opened the way for what has happened, viz., the putting of such an exorbitant valuation upon the buildings as will surely preclude the possibility of anyone bidding for the same. If the upset price had been placed at what member Tutchen wished (X'4s and respectively) the Board would have been assured of a reasonable and fair rent, whereas now they get the ridiculously low rental of X'2s per year f/'io and Z"is respectfully) for the two sites. To show what a sum of money the ratepayers have lost by this reduction we will compare the two rentals for the full term of fourteen years, each one increasing at the proposed rate of 25 per cent, after the first five years, and 25 per cent, again after the next five years, and 25 per cent, for the remaining four years —making fourteen years in all. In doing this we leave out the compound interest which should also be considered :— At the resolved rental of £25 (£lO and £l5) — For the first five years at £25 (£lO and £l5 .. .. £125 0 0 For the second five years, with 25 per cent, added 156 5 0 For the third four years, with 25 per cent, added .. 156 5 0 £437 10 0

At the proposed rental of £95 (£45 and £5O)-™ For the first five years at £95 (£45 and £5O .. . • £475 0 0 For the second five years, with 25 per cent, added 593 15 0 For the third four years, with 25 per cent, added ~ 593 15 0

£1,662 10 0 Thus it will be seen that the ratepayers have lost no less a sum than/'i,225 by this matter. What can the public possibly think about this question when it is known that several of the members who have carried this measure are justly known for their shrewd business capacity? Is it any wonder that the whole affair is generally looked upon as a rich example of “ log rolling,” and that the Engineer is not by any means alone to blame in this transaction. As a matter of fact, we have it on the most reliable authority that the Engineer’s valuation of Messrs. Common and Co.’s premises was most fair and equitable—viz,, X 750, and that the great discrepancy lies between the other two. The whole affair certainly reflects but little credit upon any one concerned. Meanwhile, the ratepayer pays the piper, and all goes merrily as a marriage bell.