PROPOSED SHIFTING SHINGLE

Temuka Leader, Issue 2327, 10 March 1892, Page 3

PROPOSED SHIFTING SHINGLE

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —It is satisfactory to see the advertisement in your Saturday’s issue calling a public meeting at Geraldine in reference to the above question, as it appeared quite probable that things would be allowed to drift and ratepayers would be plunged into a reckless expenditure and additional taxation without realising how greatly their interests were affected. The more this question is discussed and considered only tends to show how unnecessary and illconsideredthe whole proposals for shifting shingle are. It is marvellous how intelligent members of a public body, on the most superficial knowledge, and an entire absence of personal observation, are prepared to sanction a scheme for spending annually upwards of £2OOO of the ratepayers’ money, without in any way consulting their constituents. In fact, to judge by the treatment the petition from the Levels district received, the majority of the Harbor Board haughtily resent any expression of opinion of persons occupying so humble a position as a mere ratepayer—as your report of the meeting said the report was “ received ” but not “ read.”

The majority of the board may think the treatment of “ proper and intelligent opinion ” quite as considerate as it deserved, but, with due deference to an accidental majority, I venture to remark that the ratepayers will not silently consent to pay the piper to such an insolent and haughty tune. Farmers are by nature apathetic, and, as a rule, quite content ( to pay and grumble at the burdens their representatives impose; but it is a healthy sign of t ’’e times to see their energy aroused sufficiently to hold public meetings about a question so deeply affecting their interests and pockets. Ratepayers owe a large debt of gratitude to Messrs Flatman, Evans, Stumbles and Hill for their determined stand in opposing this reckless waste of money* They have fought hard a losing battle, and now nothing remains to prevent the majority from finally passing this indigested scheme, unless—and I strongly urge it—the ratepayers sacrifice ease for duty, and attend public meetings, and sign petitions emphatically condemning any expenditure on this scheme without allowing them the opportunity of electing members specially pledged to either sanction or condemn this large annual expenditure of their money.—l am, etc., v G.J.W. Geraldine.