PROPOSED CHARGES FOR WATER

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXV, Issue 52, 4 March 1915, Page 5

PROPOSED CHARGES FOR WATER

[To The Editor Sthatford Post.] Sir —ln reference to the proposed „ew water charges, I feel that the ratepayers should understand these. Very few will attend the Council Office to read the particulars, and I would l 1 (, pleased to comment on them m vour columns. ' 1 may say that I entirely disagree with the principle of those charges, and have done all in mv power to resist their imposition. k' charge of 20s for each W.C. and for each additional one IDs is proposed. I hold that instead of penalising ratepavers for installing the drainage system the Council should do all possible to assist. I argue that every person who instals the drainage confers an indirect benefit on the inhabitants of Stratford from a health point of view, although at the same time lie secures a benefit to himself, lne principle of taxing a ratepayer because he takes .advantage of the drain age is not right, anl the position will be that any ratepayer who instals the drainage has to pay about £4O (costing him in interest charges about £- per year) and then has a. special tax of £1 ; and his neighbour who does n6t improve in this way escapes the extra tax, and adds to the risk of epidemics in this town. I may say I am in favour of all householders' in Stratford paying an annual tax sufficient to cover the cost of -the sanitary arrangements, and making these arrangements a municipal duty, so that those who are connected with the drainage should pay a fair share towards helping those ratepayers who are unable to connect.

A charge of "os per hose tap or where there shall be more than one for each such hose tap 2s 6d" is proposed. I think that for a ratepayer to use water for his garden, to improve the appearance of Ins section, is in the best interests of the town; and everv person will agree that a garden well cared-for is an acquisition to the town, and that ratepayers should be encouraged to improve their sections, instead of taxed for doing so. It is quite certain that the person who stakes no interest in his section and'leaves it uncared for escapes this tax. The imposition of tins tax will result in many persons removing hose taps, and possibly many u-ill use a water-can and evade the tax, but still use large quantities of

water. Other charges are horse troughs /s Gd per annum, laundries £l, stables ( for three vehicles 10s; aerated water factory £1 10, fountain ponds £1 10s, photographic studio £l, water for manufacturing purposes 6d per 1000 gallons, water for power l|d per 1000 (gallons: These charges, in .comparison with the 5s for one I consider most unfair. Water motors use an quantity of water, and ratepayers can reckon for themselves how long it would take them to use that quantity of water contained in two and a-half 400-gallon tanks through their hose taps. I think they will conclude,that ljd for this quantity is ridiculous and not in their interests. .They, may also consider that the person using this lid worth of water is making money out of it, or ho would not use it. I think that all water used on premises which are not solely used as residences should be ■ charged for by meter at a price which will pay the Council; that the metres should be installed by the Courfcil at the expense of the users; and that the charges on residences should be as" at present per the water rate.

I may remark that I moved a resolution that hot water services should also be taxed 20s per year, as they used very large quantities of water. As the Council intended to tax the users of water, this resolution, for members, to have been consistent, should have been carried,- but it was not even, seconded. I-may say that I moved this resolution for the sole purpose of proving the inconsistency of the Council's taxation. The extra money extracted from the ratepayers, .amounting, I understand, to about £3OO, is not intended for any definite purpose as the water installation is paying well; then, why ask the ratepayer to pay more for it without giving a better service in return?

Mr Masters! in his letter, dealt with the view that Stratford voted to bo taxed on unimproved values, and now the Council intends to get the ratepayer on improvements also.

In conclusion, 1 trust the ratepayers will petition the Council against these proposed charges, and so show that they obiect to them. I am, etc. J. FREI>RIC.