RATEPAYERS' REVOLT.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 2, Issue 138, 21 October 1913, Page 3

RATEPAYERS' REVOLT.

i The Paparimu Protest. j On September 9th we published a protest from Mr IS. H. Judd and others, of Paparimu district, against certain county expenditure, etc. The objections were against: — 1. Proposed subsidy to court at Auckland exhibition. 2. Against the clerk being oppointed with Cr Campbell to supervise the Hunua loan. 3. Against the building of county offices in Pukekohe. MK JUDD'S REQUEST. Ucdcr date October 6th, Mr Judd wrote to the Editor as follows : " Some weeks since you published a protest addressed to the Franklin County Council by certain ratepayers. Seeing that you considered such of sufficient public importance to do so, I enclose the reply received from the Council to the same, and also copy of my letter in answer thereto. I hope you will publish same.". COUNTY CLERK'S REPLY. The County Clerk's reply to the protest was as follows : •'I am instructed by the Franklin County Council to acknowledge receipt of yours of the 9th ulto., and to inform you that in respect of clause two, that vou have got hold of some report which never originated from this Council. . . . " In reference to clause 3, I have to inform you that the Council propose building offices to accommodate the necessary staff and documents. You suggest the renting of a small room or a small house, evidently you have no idea of what is necessary. For your information I may inform you that a room to accommodate the staff would cost from 25s to 30s a week ; but there is a more important aspect of the question than that, there is constantly valuable and important documents accumulating which in the interest of every ratepayer must be properly housed. This, I think, even you will admit. And to house them safely a strongroom must be erected or hired. Seeing one cannot be hired, what is to be done ? It must be built. When I tell you that I have records in the temporary office that would cost some thousands of pounds to replace if a fire took place and destroyed them—in fact, it would be impossible to replace them, besides the inconvenience —you will see how necessary a strong-room is. Now, if you add the rent of buildings for staff, say, at 2os a week, and strong-rooJi 10s, that is 35s per week, here you have an expenditure of £9l per year. Now, to build offices with strongroom, say, at a cost of £ 1200, fitted up at 5.1 per cent., £66 ; thus there is a saving of £25 per year. And in the one case you have a makeshift, whilst in the other you have convenience and your own. "We have between 3000 and 4000 ratepayers in this county, and dividing the cost per individual it amounts to about 6s each. Now when the cost is spread over six years, as is proposed to be done, it will amount to Is plus a small amount for interest (about 11), making about Is lid per year for six years, then the property belongs to the county. I have gone into this question rather extensively in order to give you as much information as possible. I feel sure you will admit that the Council have studied the interest of the ratepayers, and you can rest assured that the interests of the ratepayers is the first consideration with the Council." MR JUDD'S REJOINDER.

Mr Judd's reply to the Council is as follows " Sirs, —I am in receipt of your answer to the Ratepayers' Protest forwarded by mo. " Clause I.—Subsidy to Exhibition Court :—lt is noticed that this is carefully ignored. " Clause ll.—Our informant is the Pukekohe " Times." Perhaps the Editor will disclose his source of information. I This is not an important matter but we think Mr Judd is mistaken. At any rate, at the moment we cannot remember any such report appearing in the "Times." If it did, it was an inadvertence.—Ed.] " Clause lll.—The figures here quoted are so palpably fictitious that they are bardly worthy of discussion. Is it seriously contended that a four or five roomed house in Pukekohe rents at from 25s to 30s per week ? And whence the estimate of 10s per week for a strong roonfHas an iron safe never been heard of in Pukekohe that the use of such a thing should be ignored '! And then the estimate of £I2OO for the county office " fitted up " : this is manifestly inadequate as the contract price for the building alone is £IOOO. Can the ground be purchased and the offices furnished for £2OO ? It is needless to ask such a question when it is a selfevident fact that they cannot. And now what becomes of your estimates of weekly costs and your saving " on paper" of £2o per annum 'i It vanished into thin air—a mirage, the figment of a fertile imagination. That it is necessary to provide fitting and safe accommodation for valuable papers no one will deny and I last of all but " some thousands of pounds worth " ! Some thousands ! That the scheme is of little cost per capita is beside the mark and evades, by a side issue, our main contention, i.e., that the scheme is premature and at present unnecessary and that a greater benefit would be derived from the expenditure of this sum of money on improving our roading facilities."