LOCAL GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION V. TE AROHA BRIDGE.

Te Aroha News, Volume XXII, Issue 42792, 17 October 1905, Page 2

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION V. TE AROHA BRIDGE.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —I have earnestly scanned the columns of your paper during the last week in hopes of seeing “ Ratepayer’s” reply to my questions, viz.: How many pounds in rates are paid yearly by the present County I Chairman and his supporters in the County Council, and how many pounds yearly do they draw out of the ratepayers money in travelling expenses, etc ? Most likely ‘ ( Ratepayer ’ ’ does not like these questions, or is it that he is otherwise busy in trying to trace the whereabouts of that official ‘ ‘ The Harbour Master,” who officiated at the “ port of Morrinsvillq,” when that busy township obtained its supplies by watfp* ? I find that the pew steel bridge to be erected at Cambridge will probably cost £I4OO, and one contribution to that structure will amount to an annual charge of £lO5 for a period of 37 years, always providing that money oan be raised for the purpose at 5 per oent, with a sinking fund terminable at 37 years. If not, the annual charge will be more than £lO5. I again ask ‘ ‘ Ratepaper ’ ’ if this charge of at least £2 per week op the struggling ratepayers of this district to maintain a bridge between the Waikato and Waipa Counties is evidence of the great abilities he so persistently claims for his idol P Kindly understand Mr Editor that the ratepayers of the Waipa County have* from time to time petitioned our County Council to hand over the small portion of ratepayers to them who have caused us this liability, vig., about a dozen ratepayers south and west of the Waikato river, A final effort made by Waipa, was defeated on 21st October, 1897, when our council refused to part with this portion of what they considered an asset, whereas capable men consider it a great liability, I think myself Te Aroha should have first claim upon our sympathies am] upon opr rates, and let us endeavour to return ipon at tho next Council election who understand business methods, and who will inintiato and carry through measures bonefieial to tho ratepayers of our district and county. I notice in tho report of the last Waitoaßoad Board meeting the old, old method of gulling the unfortunato settlors, that is “That Mr Swarbrick was busily engaged in preparing a test case.” Let me inform my unfortunate fellow ratepayers that this is the usual form of “ground bait” used for election purposes. Therois no need for any test oaso, hut there is need to make tho local body do its duty to its ratepayers, and urgont need indeed. Wo have in Road Board matters an exact fac simile of muddle re boundaries, as existed re Cambridge bridge. This refers to boundary joining Waikato Council, and entails a sail loss of rates, ip haying our roigfs rup along a portion of county that should holopg to Waikato. More of this anon, I am, yours, etc,, Reformed Ratepayer.