CITY’S BURDEN

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 646, 24 April 1929, Page 7

CITY’S BURDEN

LOANS AND RATING WORKING MAN’S SHARE LABOUR’S NOMINEE Auckland’s comparatively unfavourable position so far as mpniclpal indebtedness and general rating burden are concerned was made clear last evening by Mr. T. Bloodworth, Labour’s nominee for the Mayoralty, who spoke to a fairly large audience at the Leys Institute, Ponsonby. BLOODWORTH, besides outlining his qualifications to occupy a position of such responsibility in public life in Auckland, gave a comprehensive review of rating and loan indebtedness of the four chief cities of the Dominion, showing that Auckland did not compare favourably with her contemporary cities. This unsatisfactory comparison he attributed to the misuse of. public funds by past civic administrators. Economic waste was paid for by the working man eventually, and the working man’s position in turn reflected upon general industry by its influence upon spending power. The candidate quoted figures to show that in 192? the rates per head ill Auckland were £4 14s 7d, as against £3 Ss fid in Wellington, a difference of £1 6s Id a head, or for the family of four on which the Court of Arbitration fixed the minimum wage, a difference of £5 4s 4d. So that if rating alone were taken into consideration the worker in Auckland, with a wife and two children dependent on him, would require 2s a week more than a Wellington man in order that the two should be on an equal footing. MONEY FOR DEVELOPMENT The difference between the cities in this respect was due to the fact that development in Auckland has taken place later here—a good deal of it since the war, when the cost of I material and labour has been higher tlian before the war. It had taken more money to do the work, and for the most part we had had to pay higher rates for the money. We had not reached the end of development. More money would have to be borrowed unless the city was to be allowed to go back, and it was to the interest of every citizen to see that, the money was borrowed on the best terms, and spent to the greatest advantage. Some cities were able to look to relief in rating to the fact that they would soon have paid off their earlier loans, and consequently would not have to continue to find interest for them. That was not our position, said Mr. Bloodworth, and during the next two years loans to the extent of £584,000 would fall due for repayment, but the amount of sinking fund set aside for them was only £310,660: therefore, £273.740 has to be borrowed to make up the amount required, and as the rate of interest and sinking fund required now was higher than formerly the amount required as capital charges on the sum to be reborrowed would not he much less than that required for the original loan. MUNICIPALISED SERVICES Mr. Bloodworth sought to refute the impression that a Labour council would ’’municipalise everything under the sun,” but declared that he would municipalise all the essential utilities. When asked if he had voted in favour of a vote of confidence in the council staff in connection with the bursting of the Mount Eden reservoir recently, Mr. Bloodworth said the resolution had been sprung upon the council in the middle of the debate, and was carried unanimously before several members realised it. A Questioner: Did Cr. Murray vote for it? Mr. Bloodworth: He voted for it if I did. because it was carried unanimously before we realised it. The Voice: You should have realised it. At the conclusion of the meeting, Mr. J. Thomas, who is not a member of the Labour party, but is a candidate for the council, spoke in favour of Mr. Bloodworth’s campaign, stating that he had been impressed by the concise and comprehensive manner in which civic affairs had been handled by the candidate. A vote of thanks and confidence was passed unanimously by the meeting.