WAIPA COUNTY COUNCIL INJUSTICE.

Waikato Times, Volume XXII, Issue 1828, 25 March 1884, Page 2

WAIPA COUNTY COUNCIL IN JUST ICE.

TO THE EDirOK. Silt. — The vagaries and pretensions of the Waipa Count}' Council m it« attempted administration ot local government would ba amusing in itself had it not been aecom])<uned with t>o much cost, and that at the sole expense of the i atepayers. The bunging of the act into fotce in the Wai pa county wa->nothingbhoitof being a curse to the whole distiict. The Mangapiko st itcsman having again returned to (.mce fic-.h trouble was expected, as it w is then said the act should get a w Di king tiul by a few gentlemen who J iked to be called cmucillois wlnle airing then eloquence at the Ohaupo council ch.nnbeis. The latepayers had to submit to have their pioptnties uted in order to gratify the ambition of thebe experimentalists. And what is the lesult? Nothing but increased taxation. If the ratepayer do not now move at once and put a stop to the accumulated rating " Inch is promised by the council, they will soon find themselves plunged in debt winch will take ovei ten years at least of an annually lecurnng rate to clear off. Or when they receive bills from the council to pay their rates, and have to put their hands m their pockets to find the money, then regret will be felt that action was not taken in time to avert the evil. In the beginning of last February the council advertised that a poll would be taken on the 18th March to decide the question of boi lowing £(JOO to do works in certain parts of the county, and to meet the required payments to have a rate stiuck. For some reason, not given to the public, the council adjourned the day for the poll from the 18th Maich to lbt Apnl (Fool's Day). Is not this fully characteristic of the council, who seem not | satisfied by making themselves ridicul >\yt, but actually by advertisement appoint Fools Day for the county electors to meet at Ohaupo to record their votes so as to give the council power to further rate their properties. Is, not this a beautiful recommendation of the council. By this time I think people will consider they are too heavily rated already, and that road boards are quite sufficient for rating purposes without the assistance of the council. Ln fact the engineers to a great extent are the council, and on their reports in a great measure depend the amount of inci eased late ratepayers will have to pay the council in the future. These geutlemen are doing far better than those who have to find the money for the council, and it is not to be wondered at if at times they are found to be apologists for the action of the council. When the council piopose to borrow money fvom the Government, plans and specifications have to be prepared as well as tne estimated cost of the work, and in order to get as much as possible of what is requited, a laiger bum ib geneially applied for. The engineer is paid commission on the amount of the application, and although the Government may only grant one tenth of the sum applied for, commission will have to be paid on tli3 whole, while the plans and specifications may be then next to useless for the expenditure of the fractional sum granted. If I mistake not the council aie likely to bring a hornet's nest j about their earn before long. When on my way from Auckland a few days ago, 1 was informed that in the Newcastle riding signatures to a petition ware being actively canvassed fop, and signed in duplicate, a oopy addressed to each of the respective local bodies in that riding, requesting that immediate steps be taken to counteract the action of the council in regard to the proposed r<*te, as well as to bring under the notice of the Government the unjust and illegal manner the Government borrowed money has been disposed of by the couucil. On enquiry I was told that the council a few months ago, made application to the Government for a sum of £3200 under the Roads and Bridges Act, to be expended on works in the different ridings in the county, and tha.t a sum of £500 was included in tha above application for Newcastle, at the request of the local body of that district. The Government only granted £600, and as the item for Newcastle was about one-sixth of the amount applied for, that district should be fairly entitled to one-sixth of what was granted, But instead of the council giving Newcastle its fair share of the grant, it is alleged that the whole of the grant was divided on other ridinga in the county, while it is proposed that Newcastle is to be included among those to be rated to pay back one-fourth of the grant. Now, if thiß statement be correct, it is plain to any unprejudiced person that the Qaqngu! havo acted most unjuatly to Newcastle in the way the grant was allocated, and will tempt ratepayers to say that the council who would act so are certainly unfit to be trusted with the disposal of public money. Ratepayers in the districts where most of this money ia proposed to be expended must understand that the distribution is unfair, and that Government money ghould not be given a.way by the Qouqcil a,s a polifcica] sqp to make the council popular in certain districts. It is only necessary for any ratepayer to read the 47th clause of the Roads and Bridges Act to see how members of a couucil may, become personally liable (or the improper disposal <»f Government money. In conclusion I would say to' ratepayers, if you do go to Ohaupo on Fool's Day, do not record your vote, a.? the council' woulc( wish; to. rate your pro^rtj^w asm Jsp-ssssffi

cripple the road board, but give y»" r votfc as a protest against the council borrowing money, which that body do not seem capable of disposing of in a just manner. — I am, &c, Waipa. March 24th, 1884.