The Daily News. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1921. A NEW MOVE.

Taranaki Daily News, 14 September 1921, Page 4

The Daily News. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1921. A NEW MOVE.

At Monday’s meeting' of the New Plymouth Borough Council the Mayor gave notice to move that the resolutions previously passed respecting the making of a survey for additional power resources be rescinded; also that steps be taken to raise a loan of £9OOO to provide a survey with estimates and to enlarge No. 2 tunnel. These notices were given following the receipt of a letter from the chairman of the Ratepayers'’ Association • conveying the resolutions passed at last week’s meeting asking the council to proceed at once with the survey and to continue the concreting of No. 2 tunnel at the larger size. At first blush it would seem that the Mayor had gracefully accepted the ratepayers’ mandate, but a closer examination shows that in this matter he is intent upon putting his personal wishes before the interests of the borough. All along Mr. Wilson has rightly stressed the importance of push» ing on with the works, and, in replying to the second deputation to the council, he said the principal reason why the survey could not be undertaken was becaiuse of the delay that would be caused in completing the works. Now he tables a motion, which, if given effect to, will entail seven weeks’ delay on top of the time it will take to carry out the survey itself. If the delay were unavoidable no exception could be taken to the course proposed by the Mayor, but there is, no necessity whatever for it, as jwe will prove. The council has authority to raise ten per cent, additional on the loans authorised, besides which the council has 400 acres of land at the works it. will have no use for, that ean be turned into money. It is admitted by the Mayor that the works are being constructed under the estimates, for the reason that the council added a substantial sum to the engineers’ estimates for contingencies. Therefore there is no difficulty in - finding the money out of the present loan authorities. It will be noticed that the sum for which authority is to be asked is £9OOO. Mr. Pearless, the resident engineer at the works, reported to the council on August 7 that £1793 would complete the tunnel at the larger size compared with the original estimates for the smaller tunnel. To this has to be added the sum of £3400 for the forebay and work outside the tunnel—a total of £5193. The survey has been estimated to cost about £3OO. and, allowing another £2OO for fuller estimates, we have a total of £5700, or £3300 less than the amount mentioned by the Mayor. Mr. Pearless’ estimates, it lias to be remembered, are based on actual work clone, so they may be considered quite accurate". So what the Mayor pro- , poses is to cause an unnecessary delay of seven weeks and to ask

for fifty per cent, more money than will be required, at the same time submitting the proposal to the ratepayers under the worst possible circumstances, for presumably it will be taken at the same time as the poll for £150,000, required to redeem loans falling due next year, with the exception of £lO,OOO, which is to be earmarked for eleetrie light purposes. Why the latter? What is it for? . If it is for electric light purposes, then why not lump it with the £5700 and make one hydro-eleetrie loan of it? The reason is plain. The Mayor desires the loan to be killed, and so justify the Stand he has taken over the matter of the survey 1 and the tunnel. Now, what did the ratepayers’ meeting ask? Simply that the survey be put in hand at once and the tunnel to be continued at its bigger size. If the survey failed to reveal what the engineers expect—Wore water and suitable storage, at reasonable cost—the tunnel could be tapered to the smaller size, and the total cost to the ratepayers would not be more perhaps than £7oo' to £750. But should the survey be successful, then no time would be lost and the tunnel could be completed at the larger size. If the council then were not disposed to accept the responsibility for the spending of the £5700 involved in enlarging the tunnel, etc., then it could go to the ratepayers for the necessary authority, a course totally unnecessary, all the same, if the ratepayers’ views are correctly reflected in the Press and at the recent public meeting. It niust, however, be admitted that the Mayor is only logically following the mistaken course he has set himself from the beginning of this unfortunate business. Far better had he either agreed to put the survey in hand forthwith, or disregarded the decision of the ratepayers’ meeting altogether. Then ratepayers would know how to act. We trust, however, better counsels will prevail at Monday’s meeting and that instead of pretending to consult ratepayers the council will proceed with the survey, and so terminate a condition of things that cannot be other than hurtful to the best interests of the community.