RATEPAYERS' ASSOCIATION.

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 1, Issue 61, 3 November 1931, Page 4

RATEPAYERS' ASSOCIATION.

G. C.

NAUMANN,

. To the Editor. i Sir, — Far from feeling aggrieved i by your attack on the Ratepayers' As- • sociation in the leading article of 17th i ult., the exeeutive of the Association 1 have cause to believe that their action ■ in petitioning Parliament re the Lake , Front area has met with the approval of the majority of right thinking ratepayers. Since you gave such publicity to the affair we have had large numbers of congratulatory comments from influential citizens, who agree that we are actuated by the highest motives in desiring to protect the ground in question from spoliation and unsightliness. That a special meeting of the Borough Council should have been called and reported simultaneously with your leader all because the Ratepayers' Association dared to petition Parliament without first notifying the Council would he rather amusing were it not for certain invidious remarks on your part. It is easy to indulge in generalities, but we def y you to quote a single action of the Association which has not served a useful purpose. Regarding your assertion that we are lackiiig a sense of responsibility; our very action, about which such a stir was made, proves that we have a very acute sense of our responsibilities in fighting those who do lack that quality with their own weapons to ensure the achievement of our objective, namely, the preservation of Rotorua's open spaces for future generations. In our endeavours towards this objective we believe the Association to have not only the majority of Rotorua citizens but of most New Zealanders behind us. Your remarks that the Association has rapidly lost support for reasons quoted are untrue. The lack of support for a time was entirely due to a cessation of activity caused by the long and serious illness of the president, since then the Association has certainly not lost fuirther support among the general body of ratepayers, but has on the other hand gained and is steadily gaining members who believe we are really striving to conserve their interests. As regards the exception taken to the method of presenting the petition without first showing it to the Council; similar methods have been employed by the council in the past, as far as we are aware, no copyrights have been acquired. We understand that the Town Clerk, in giving evidence before the petition's committee gave a definite assurance — presumably with the Council's approval — that beyond some wild talk by some including Mr. Jackson, there was no intention of leasing sections. If that were so, why were the ratepayers put to the expense of sending Mr. McLean to Wellington to oppose the granting of a petition which aimed only at the prevention of such leaging? Further, why the objections raised by the Council against the elimination or alteration of Clause 4 of the Reclamation Bill? Again, why was Mr. Tschopp, the landscape architect, made to draw up beautifieation plans for various parts of the town, but not for the Lake Front area, which is most in need of beautifieation and could he done at a comparatively small cost? — I am, etc.,

Hon. Sec.,