Letters to the editor

Waimarino Bulletin, Volume 3, Issue 10, 30 July 1985, Page 2

Letters to the editor

Sir, I would like through your column to lodge the following open letter to Ohakune councillors. Councillors, your decision to inflate or allow the inflation of the Ohakune rate levy to the extent proposed maybe fobbed off as legally within your rights. Morally however, you are wrong and to this end you should attempt to make amends. I find it incredible that as members of our small community, elected to support the citizens and their residency, you attempt to justify such an increase.

Your lack of foresight in not considering the plight of those people within the town already financially extended by the last few years of economic restraints and increases is appalling. It shows an irresponsible lack of awareness, remedied, 1 hope, by those ratepayers in this position making their feelings known to each and every one of you. Should the ratepayers meekly accept this increase it will allow council to put Ohakune on a rate plane which, coupled with our recent revaluation, inflation, councils 1986 and future expenditure, plus the Government's plans for

G.S.T., into the most ridiculous rateable situation of any comparable town in New Zealand. Finally to you all, if you allow figures to be produced justifying increasing such a large section of the rateable properties by 50 to 60% without demanding a review and reduction, your own credibility as respected capable representatives of Ohakune's ratepayers must surely be placed in doubt. Please rethink and return the rate percentage to a level comparable with other munic-

lpalities.

Graham j

Foster

Ohakune

Dear Sir, I would like to comment on the Mayor's "tongue lashing" as your reporter so aptly put it in last week's Bulletin. It's a pity that Dave Scott was not given the courtesy of addressing council first when his comments "we do not want to address personalities" may have made some impact. However, the Mayor set out like a ship in full sail, firstly the concerned ratepayers'group for not including the Mayor in their discussions. The group had written to council requesting a round-

table meeting to discuss the issues, Mayor included. Reply, a council meeting will be held, which you may attend. This meeting will invoke standing orders, i.e. all questions submitted to council three days prior to meeting, spokespersons, speaking time 10 minutes each. (Not a great public relations exercise!) The press were next — insufficient coverage of estimates and incorrect reporting. To report, press must have sufficient correct information given to them by council. I don't believe that there was enough forthcoming. Claims were made that an average 32% increase was reported which should have been 35%. Council never at the time refuted the 32% figure. I wonder what would have happened if the press with some "simple arithmetic" had printed a 50% to 60% increase? Winstone Samsung for speaking to the press. Since when do people or compan-

ies have to put up their hands -and say "please sir may 1 go to the press." 1 understand the company sought a meeting with councillors but were told that they could attend the full council meeting. No useful discussion could be held at this meeting. Next came disgruntled ratepayers, who by simple arithmetic could have worked their rates out. Judging by the Mayor's letter which came out with the rate demand it would appear that the ratepayers are not the only ones who can't do simple arithmetic.

Would it have been too difficult for council to explain how to arrive at a percentage increase? I think not. Next came the town for lack of interest. I would say that after this rate demand there will be no lack of interest in council's expenditure. It is obvious that the council has the shutters up on this issue and would be well advised to heed Dave Scott's comment "our town cannot afford a split — we urge all councillors to open their guard and seek constructive advise from sate-

payers.

Abused

Ratepayer