PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 122, Issue 20492, 7 May 1938, Page 9

PUBLIC OPINION

As expressed by correspondents, whose letters are welcome, but for whose views we have no responsibility. Correpondents are requested to write in ink. It is essential that anonymous writers enclose their proper names as a guarantee of good faith. Unless this rule is complied with, their letters will not appear.

SOMETHING FOR NOTHING (To the Editor) Sir.—lt's a mad world, my masters. Hamilton Is about to elect a council of 12 men. who. we hope, will make “Propress” their watchword. The biggest issues before the town at present are, or should be, modern railway facilities, betterment of traffic and car-parking facilities, and the muchdiscussed Garden Place removal. Our new council must take immediale steps to push the Railways Department for a new, modern station at Frankton Junction, and for the lowering of the line where it crosses or blocks our streets. Space must be found for better traffic conditions, and big relief will be gained by a combination of elimination of traffic hold-ups by the railway and by full use being made of our back streets through the removal of Garden Place Hill, giving us through streets with uninterrupted traffic across our present railway. A few misguided enthusiasts are working against the removal of the hill, although I think all the leaders of the Preservation Society have at some time expressed the view that the hill must eventually go, and what better time than the present. Some two hundred ratepayers have agreed to carry the whole of the financial burden, and the opportunity is too good to be missed. Mr Parlane’s talk about dictatorship is ridiculous and unworthy of a man In his position. Hamilton should seize the chance of unloading on to a small section of ratepayers who want to assume the responsibility a burden that otherwise the whole town will some day have to carry.— I am, etc., PALMERSTON STREET. Hamilton, May 6. GARDEN PLACE HILL (To the Editor) Sir, —There are several matters which may well be underlined at this stage. (1) The financial ghost has been laid. One small, though wealthy, area has assumed the burden. The ratepayers in that area may be “mugs,” they may not know their own business, but they have shouldered the burden. That's that. (2) The only argument outstanding in favour of preservation is the aesthetic one. (3) No poll has yet been taken on the clean issue—removal or non-removal. Nor, as far as I am aware, has any petition been presented to the Borough Council asking for a plebiscite. (4) Some ratepayers, voting on the loan proposal, may erroneously have thought they were voting upon the Issue of removal or non-removal. Their mistake, if they made It, mattered not at all. Their votes were counted with the others for or against the Issues set out In the voting paper- They could do no more. (5)'A few persons, some of whom are now concerned to make us believe there was a clear-cut Issue for removal or non-removal at the time of the first poll, used arguments (as they were perfeotly entitled to do on the actual issue) inconsistent with and eminently calculated to confuse the clear-cut issue they now allege. Among these arguments were the following: (a) The tactics of the other side (which may well have decided the issue) ; (b) finance (now irrelevant) ; (o) Frankton and Whltiora interests.—l am, etc., F. A. DE LA MARE. Hamilton, May 5. GARDEN PLACE (To the Editor) Sir, —With a view to clearing up some of the misunderstandings which appear to exist, and some of the misstatements which are being made concerning the Garden Place scheme, it should be known— ? (1) That the area from Pascoe’s j corner to the shop on the other corner of Garden Place, and extending baok to the Anglesea Street cutting, is a publio road. (2) Had the necessary money been available the present or any previous council could have excavated this area to the level of Victoria Street without reference to the ratepayers. This would have left properties fronting Garden Place above the new level, and the council would have been faced with claims for compensation for loss of access. To prevent this the council’s scheme involves buying these properties and levelling them also. (3) The* poll taken a year ago was for authority to raise a loan to carry out ihe scheme, and it was the raising of the loan that the ratepayers refused to sanction. (4) The abstract question as to the removal or retention of the hill has j never been submitted to the vote of j the ratepayers. The financial aspect j of the matter now having been dis- i posed of, it Is for the incoming ! council to take the necessary steps to put the work in hand. (5 The proposal for holding a i second poll did not come from the council. Ratepayers in the area from Hood Street to Bryce Street petitioned the council to be allowed to form a : special rating area and to carry the . whole financial responsibility if any), j G Parliament, after the taking of ' evidence by the Local Bills Committee of the House, extended the Act to allow a second poll to be taken. 7 The Local Bodies Loans Board, after the fullest investigation, extend- ; ins: over many months, approved the scheme, and the second poll was carried bv n larce ina.joritv of ratepayers tn the special area. s T’ne security for the loan will ; be a special rate over the properties in the special rating area only, and not one penny can be levied outside that area. The sw-'e-ostinn that the rate will lie st»rc:id over Hie whole borough is absolutely untrue. The iiiai• *t*i 1 y of the present ! .• ii ion regard Hi carrying out of the Harden Place scheme as a necessary preliminary to the lowering or removal of the railway line tlirough Hamilton, i This statement is made with the , authority of all members of the pro- j sent council other than Councillors . Dillicar and Lafferty.—\\'e are, etc., » JOHN R. FOW, Mayor. 11. M. HAMMOND, Chairman Garden Place Committee. Hamilton. May G.

CITIZEN’S ASSOCIATION (To the Editor) Sir,—lt is pleasing to learn from Mr Mr Reynolds that the Citizens* Asso- | elation is going: to give particular ' attention to bomb attacks, because the words were hardly out of his ' mouth before some high explosive I landed right in the middle of the ' happy party. 1 No one has attempted to Justify or explain the matters which gave rise to : the resignation of several prominent i members, although the Nelson touch Jin the defence of the president and j secretary, that “we saw nothing wrong,” is certainly in the true heroic | tradition. The idea of pushing fori ward an innocent-looking stalking- ' horse goes back to Trojan times. The i trouble is that the old crew got | spotted getting in, and the Trojan horse is now recognised as the Citizens’ Ass.—l am, etc., PLUTO. Hamilton, May 6. BOROUGH EXPENDITURE (To the Editor) Sir,—At the last council meeting the borough treasurer supplied figures giving details of the cost of the two Garden Place polls. They read: Cost of first poll, £76 9s 3d; propaganda expenses, first j>oll, £136 4s 4d; costs and expenses Empowering Amendment Bill, £25 8s sd; costs of second poll, £23 17s 6d. Total, £261 19s 6d. Figures dealing with borough expenditure over the last three years show that the percentage of total rates paid over the respective areas are: Frankton and Maeroa, 14; Hamilton East, 13; Claudelands. 11; leaving that portion of the old Hamilton borough known as Hamilton West to carry the balance—62 per cent. It is when we come to the expenditure of these rates that we find the wild and extravagant statements made at the Frankton meeting utterly devoid of truth. Mr Laffertv was in possession of these figures, and could have used them had he chosen. We find over the period 1935-38 (three years) the total cost in the borough on streets maintenance was £33.989; permanent street works over the same period cost £20,462. The total of £54,451 was distributed over the respective j areas in the following proportions; ! Frankton and Maeroa. £15,127, or 28 per cent. Thus Frankton and Maeroa received an expenditure of £2 for every £1 received in rates. The old Hamilton West area, which provided 62 per cent, of the rates, reoelved an expenditure of 38 per cent., or in the proportion of 13s for every £1 paid in rates. Claudelands and Hamilton East received 18 per cent, and 17 per cent, respectively of the expenditure. In the matter of kerbing and channelling during the three years the sum of £2507 was spent in Frankton (none in Maeroa), which was greater than that spent in either Hamilton East (£1639) or'Claudelands (£178.5); the old Hamilton area received £2374 In this connection. Coming to asphalt footpaths, the figures are even more startling; Frankton, £1533; Hamilton East, £820; Claudelands, £620; Hamilton West, £1766. Asphalt roads: Frankton, £1567; Claudelands, £1654; Hamilton East, £886; Hamilton West, £2033. Out of the total expenditure on permanent street works Frankton and Maeroa received £5852; Claudelands, £4271; Hamilton East, £3345; Hamilton West, £6994. On street maintenance Frankton and Maeroa received £9275; Claudelands, £5076; Hamilton East, £5964; Hamilton West, £13,674. Would it be possible to give a more positive and definite statement bearing out the fact that the new areas coming Into the borough have received very great benefit from the rates received from the old borough ar.a of Hamilton East and West? The revenue received from endowments in this same area Is over £7OOO yearly; the other areas came in empty-handed, j In the matter of electricity profits, where are the bulk produced if not from the old Hamilton West area? It is the consumer of power who creates the even load throughout the day, thereby allowing the householder to receive electricity at a reasonable cost. The amounts paid by numerous users in the business area would astonish the small user.—l am, eto., J. E. TIDD. Hamilton, May 0. (To the Editor) Sir, —In a letter appearing in your issue of yesterday, “John Citizen” extolls the virtues of past councils and comments on the excellent work that has been accomplished over a period I of years; and in this to a large extent Ihe will have the support of a very ! large number of electors. However, ;he then goes on to say that “never before in the town’s history have we bad such evidence of division.” Now, i ”J.C.,” with many other electors, must I realise that we do not have division without cause, and in this instance it is undoubtedly the effort which the outgoing council has made to force upon the ratepayers something they do not. \\ant that is largely responsible i for the unrest that at present exists. ! “J.C.” then goes on to refer to those obsessed with the retention of Garden Place Hill, but he says nothing about those obsessed with the idea of its re- ! moral. However, in further reference ; to this matter he states that the big majority of those who voted against the loan did so “not without some justification.'' on the grounds of an , increase in rates; and, further, that : with the knowledge and assurance that removal would not cost the ratepayers. other than those in the area, one penny, the opposition will now be withdrawn. Now, to take his own argument, if, the ratepayers over the , whole town were justified in rejecting the proposed loan in April last because of the rate burden, then it is obvious that when this same burden is placed , upon a very small section of the ratej payers the load will be a very crushing one indeed, with a result that it | will be necessary for the business 1 people concerned to increase the sellj ing price of their goods. The obvious i , result of this will be that trade will . ! bo transferred to businesses outside of j the area. This loss of trade, coupled I with the general tightening up in business which must come to this hoI minion as a result, of reckless spendI ing. may easily place the ratepayers I in the special area in such a position I that they may ilnd extreme difficulty lin meeting their rate demands. Under

such conditions one can easily visualise a successful appeal to Parliament to give the council authority to spread the rate over the whole of the borough. Electors, therefore, should not be lulled into a sense of false security because in the meantime the ratepayers 'in a special area have undertaken responsibility for the enormous expenditure that will be involved in the removal of the hill, but should safeguard their position by casting their votes on Wednesday next for candidates who will carry out the decision of the ratepayers.—l am, etc., NO RISK. Hamilton, May 6. MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS (To the Editor) Sir.—The statement made by Mr J. S. Stewart, a member of the Labour majority on the Auckland and Suburban Drainage Board. yesterday should open the eyes of electors to the danger of allowing party politics to enter municipal affairs. In defending an allegation that his party was taking credit for something for which such credit was not due case of follow-my-leaders), he stated that “the Labour majority decisions were always carried out on the board and the Labour members knew what they were going to do before they came to the ! board’s meetings.’’ These followers of the caucus are the people who object to what they term Star Chamber methods. It is worthy of note that the Auckland City Council, in spite of the fact of more prosperous times, has increased the rate to 4s 3Jd in the £ on the annual value, and that it is now imperative again to increase this to meet the heavy increased hospital contributions. In Dunedin the Labour City Council is having a great time spending the reserves accumulated over a period of years, and in addition, after having arranged for £200,000 for municipal housing, is now considering a further £IOO.OOO. Here we have a Labour ticket which. ' if elected, would conslitute a majority, i Opposed to this we have seme 23 j other candidates for the 12 seats. Two tickets have been chosen from these, not in opposilion to Labour, hut io each other. One chosen by the nominees, ns being level-headed, successful and helpful men who are likely to give of their best in municipal j

affairs, as they have been useful citizens. The other ticket is composed of quite estimable persons, but whose sole outlook on municipal life is whether or not Garden Place Hill should be removed or allowed to remain until private owners have taken their portions away. Except electors are prepared to concentrate their votes instead of dissipating them, there is every chance that they will enable Hamilton to be rut®d by a Labour council, with the same spendthrift results and increased taxation as has been demonstrated in ; larger centres.—l am, etc., BUSY BEE. j Hamilton, May 5. (To the Editor) I Sir,—l do not know that I shall plump for either the Labour or the Garden Place ticket, but I did send for my high-power specs when I read the manifests of the Citizens’ candidates. Haven’t these good people got something more to put forward than this blarney about “free, sound and open administration.'’ “prudent expenditure." “interest of all sections of the community.’’ “acting without fear or favour,” and all the rest of it? Did any Communist ever promise less? Why are they afraid to say just exactly what they intend to do?—I am, etc., F.R.C. Hamilton, "May 6. (To the Editor) ?ir. —Born with trepidation and indetlniteness. what has happened to the Citizens' Association? Is it now the stalking-horse for the outgoing council or only the lamb that—we hope as unwillingly as the original woolly one —lias surrendered its skin? And its ‘‘ticket." what of them? Even they | are not over-happy. One or two who should have got there appear to have been left out. Witnessing members of this citizens’ ticket—to be more explicit, the Mayor and several councillors—giving support to an outgoing councillor (who had not found room under the skin rather pointedly proclaims that the ••ticket” is reallv the old council endeavouring to .get itself voted in again under a disguise. —1 am. etc., WOLF—WOLF I Hamilton, May -i.