PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 122, Issue 20493, 9 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.

PUBLIC LIBRARIEB (To the Editor) Sir,—lt is a matter for regret that those responsible—the selection committee—of our libraries, give little or no thought to the needs of the technical student. This is particularly Look where you will, you fail to find anything of real technical value. This should not obtain, and in the light of technical developments, having regard to national and industrial requirements, some helpful literature should be available. A wise selection from our British journals, one of each, mechani- • cal and electrical, would be welcomed by many, and “ a suggestion not altogether out of place.” is to include one of the college masters on the committee. To-day, when the number of alloy-steels approach the thousand mark, the text-book always meet, the situation, giving the best solution of a problem.—l am, etc.. TRADESMAN. Cambridge, May 7.

GARDEN PLACE HILL (To the Editor) Sir. —Every elector who has not | already done so would be well advised ! to take a quiet walk to the top of Garden Place Hill, and then down and , around to the back of this elegant mound and look well and ponder be- ! fore going tb record his vote. Just j imagine it! A preservation society i formed to preserve such an ugly little I anthill! Far from being an asset, it, is a standing disgrace to a growing and prosperous town. Hamilton residents should realise that it is largely to the vast outlying areas that the town owes its pros- , perity, and the thousands of farmers and others who pour into Hamilton every day are entitled to a bit of space, j Many I know would willingly con- , tribute towards the cost of removing this hill. The unanimous opinion among country folk who regard Hamilton as their town is that if Garden Place Hill is not removed it will stand as a monument to the lack of foresight ! and progress of Hamilton citizens. It is mentioned that the Labour Party will support, the preservation of the hill, but surely they could move that mound in one onward and upward stride!—l am, etc., MRS FARMER BILL. Pukeroro, May 6. (To the Editor) Sir,—l am wondering if the Labour 1 Party would make some further explanation of their policy in regard to 1 Garden Place, because it seems at present to be the only policy which is i certain to increase the rates of the 1 small ratepayer. Nor can I see that they are offering anything new in “securing the hill to the people of : Hamilton.*’ since the Preservation Society has already advocated buying It for a park, and the central area want I to buy it for a business centre. The Labour Party supports neither ! scheme, but proposes to buy the hill j and decide what to do with it'bv refer- i endum afterwards. This would cost I little short of £20,000, and all rate- j pavers will have to meet their share, ! whether they want the park, want the hill removed, or want neither. They j are to foot the bill and decide after- j wards. j Voters naturally ask themselves: “Is j this any better than making up our minds now?” If I am in favour of a park it would be safer for me to support the Preservation Society's candidates, recognising that my rates will be increased (but no more than under the Labour scheme), but if I am in favour of removing the hill I will have to support- the present council, with the knowledge that my rates will not be increased at all, because they have arranged to allow the central area to [take the whole responsibility. All who think before they vote must therefore come to the conclusion that the Labour scheme as it stands is a more costly j and loss certain method of getting j what they want. The point that puzzles me most is why the Labour Party should wish the I small ratepayers to take over and pay i for something which the big rate- ! payers have already agreed to do themselves. unless, of course, they favour ! the park. Rut if they do it would be ; in their own interest to say so.—l am, ' etc., j SMALL RATEPAYER. Hamilton, May 7.

itumm ctt FREE SERVICES (To the Editor) Sir.—ln your issue of Friday it was stated that Mr Lafferty, when addressing a meeting at the Frankton Town Hall, referring to his nomination as a candidate for the Waikato Hospital Board, made this comment on the national social service proposals of the Government: “It will be fine for all old people to have free medical attention, free hospital service, and free maternity service. The latter will be of great benefit tn the working man.” Free everything would be of great benefit to all. whether working or otherwise, but it seems to me that Mr Lafferty got somewhat tied up in his remarks, or is he proposing and advising other old people to rear families simply to participate in the free maternity service?—l am, etc., THOMAS ATKINS. Hamilton, May 6.

CIVIC ELECTIONS (To the Editor) Sir,—lt must be a shock to the ratepayers of Hamilton to see that the only people who seem to have a progressive policy are the Labour candidates. Surely the present councillors are not satisfied with railway trains running across the busiest part of Victoria Street all day, and surely we need a town hall and a reduction in electric light charges. I have not yet heard a councillor say that Frankton should get a fair share of the large amount of money the council gives to the Beautifying Society every year. And I have yet to hear a councillor with enough courage to protest against the £IOO a year the council gives to the Auckland Aero Club. I would like to see someone standing for the council advocating an aerodrome for Hamilton, and it is surely time the council provided a beacli at the Killarney Road end of the lake. It is about time the old councillors woke up and gave us a progressive policy if they want our votes. —I am, etc., RATEPAYER. Frankton, May 7. (To the Editor) Sir,—lt is regrettable that the introduction of side issues and “tickets” may result in the election of a council which will not be truly representative of the electors. Simply because “Mr Black” is in favour of the removal or retention of the hill, his past efforts as a worthy citizen are completely to be ignored by those who oppose his views on this ‘particular subject, and this ; despite the fact that his views on a hundred other subjects are considered sound. Similarly those who hold certain views are asking the electors to vote for “Mr White,” who i§ pledged to support their views, but whose judgment on general business Issues may not be pleasing. One would think that the only qualification necessary to become a councillor was to be able to say yes or not on the hill question. Believe me there will be some very important questions to be dealt with by the incoming council during the next three years. I shall endeavour to select from the ballot paper, irrespective of tickets, the men who in my opinion will carry out the wider and genera! business of the council in a conscientious manner.—l am, etc., FRED JONES. Hamilton, May 7.

MUNICIPAL EXTRAVAGANCE (To the Editor) Sir.—l have sometimes heard the jibe that the main plank in the Labour Party’s policy is extravagance in spending other people's money, and a perusal of the financial statements of local bodies under Labour control shows that it has a solid foundation. It also shows that, in spite of all its platform oratory, Labour favours dictatorial methods, and that the Government has helped that policy by legislation empowering local bodies to raise loans without taking a poll of the ratepayers. For instance, Birkenhead, under a Labour council, has borrowed for housing £30.000 without any reference to the ratepayers, who will have ito carry any losses incurred. Although publicly Labour advocates talk grandiloquently about democracy and free speech. ‘ recent disclosures in Auckland have proved that when in a majority they adopt the hole-and-corner methods of the caucus. Space forbids much quotation from official figures in my possession, but perhaps I could ask space for a few. i as the subject is of interest at present: j Auckland, addition of 5Jd in the £ to i the rates and no improvements in serI vices; positions on staffs filled by Labour people. Wellington: Not absolutely under Labour rule, but Labour iis very strong on the council; rates j during the last three years have risen ! from £497,300 to £580.300, and hos- : pital rates from £37.180 to £70.000. :Dunedin: Under complete Labour control. This city decided in 1935 to ! assist the unemployed by withholding : money that should have been paid into : the renewal funds of the trading de- ! partments. and in three years £140.551 has been so diverted. A strange thing j is that in 1930. when there were about 50.000 unemployed in the Dominion, | the city spent £10.005 on relief; and in | 1938, when, according to Labour I speakers, unemployment had almost j disappeared. £37.450. This should require explanation. Under Labour £12,550 has been added to the rates. ! Christchurch: The tramways are run at an annual loss of £19.000. As nearly all the Labour members on these local bodies are not ratepayers If Is easy to sec why they are so freehanded. —I am, etc., LEONIDAS. Hamilton, May 5.

BOMB-PROOF BOROUGHS To the Editor) Sir—Like Mr T. G. Reynolds, the possibility of Hamilton being attacked bv air-raids lias been exercising my mind for some considerable .time; but while there is no doubt that the Cilizens* Association could render inestimable service to Die injured in such a lamentable contingency, i am driven to the conclusion that adequate provision for the relief of citizens should be made well beforehand. It is a truism that there is no time like the present, and I would suggest that in dealing with this urgent need there is opportunity for the sinking of sectional differences, for what I would suggest is this: That a compromise be effected between the aims o f the two parties advocating the retention and the removal of Garden Place Hill by removing the interior of the hill and leaving the exterior standing. In this way Hamilton could be provided with a camouflaged bomb-proof shelter second to none in the Dominion, while the protagonists of the present schemes would be provided with a perfect opportunity for burying the hatchet. But the proposal has another factor to commend it. Normally in the operation of bomb-proof shelters, the problem of ingress and egress is a major difficulty, but if Garden Place were converted as suggested pedestrians could run in on the street level. In these matters we cannot look too far ahe.ad, and whatever views citizens may express at the polls next Wednes - day, on Mr Reynolds and the Citizens' Association, in this respect, at any rate, the association lias done something to justify its inception.—l am, etc., LOCKSLEY HALL. Hamilton, May 6.

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS (To the Editor) Sir, —The time is drawing near for all eligible people to cast their votes to decide the progress of Hamilton for another three years, and it so happens this year that unusually important issues are at stake, notably the Garden Place issue and the question of the use of electricity profits for permanent imj provements. We have some 32 candidates standing for the 12 seats on the council, and so far, with less than a week to go. there are only seven besides the present councillors who have made their views quite clear. According to the views of the phairman of the Preservation Society committee there are some candidates standing as preservationists who do not propose to let it be known to the voter where their sympathies lie, so voters should beware. There are a lot of loose statements being made concerning the council and Garden Place, and my memory of the events leading up to the poll of a year ago are so clear that I think others should be reminded of the facts. There were three principal questions raised by the Preservation Society which influenced a small majority of ratepayers to Jurn the loan down. These were tfiat it would result in a material increase in rates; that, the lowering of the railway should have been tackled first, and, finally, there were some very serious suggestions made that certain members of the council were merely pushing the scheme to further their own interests. There were certainly no other major issues raised at the meeting held by the Preservation Society held in Hamilton East. Question one is no longer an issue with us, as any risk involved is carried by the central area and the burden, if any, cannot be transferred to the balance of the ratepayers without a vote being taken. Furthermore, it Is obvious to all that if the hill is not removed a vast sum of money must be spent on it to acquire it and beautify it, and therefore the rates will go up as a result. Question two appears to have been somewhat of a misrepresentation,, as from what the Minister of Railways said at Frankton a few weeks ago the council’s officers have been working steadily on the railway problem for years. Question three is one of those errors which the Preservation Society never should have made, and its members had their answer in the overwhelming result of the recent poll. Now the cry is that the action of the council is unconstitutional. How could it be when the council allowed the poll to proceed and intimated at the same time that nothing would be done Until a new council was elected?

As to the use of electricity profits for carrying out permanent street works, the only alternative is to raise the rates to find the money, and who feels the mere sixpence a week on the electricity account? No works have yet come down my street, hut they are steadily coming nearer, and I can see no better way of financing the work. What most residents want to see is a speeding-up of the process of dust elimination and asphalt footpaths; and if a small increase in the cost of electricity will bring this about, by all means let us have it. I for one shall be pleased to hear if any of the new candidates have a better policy to offer than the progressive one that has been followed for many years past.—l am, etc., HARRY MOODY. Hamilton East, May 7.