NAPIER CITY FINANCES.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Volume 59, Issue 46, 26 March 1930, Page 8

NAPIER CITY FINANCES.

WILLIAM HANNAH.

(To the Editor.) . , Sir, — Will you ^kindly allow me fur- : ther space in your.widely read jonrnal to comment on the answers given to my qnestions by the Mayor of Napier? Firstly, I thank His Worshlp for answenng my qnestions^ but desire to point out that the auswer to number two is not a direct answer. The fir&t two questions would not have been asked, provided that the Mayor had f, not made it appear in his report to the council that I begrudged Napier South of a few "greeu patches." I believe I am correct in stating that the . Mayor (Mr J. Vigor Brown) and the copncil of 1915, laid it down as a condition of merging that Napier South was to be a separately rated area for water, : sewerage, roads and footpaths, but aqoording* to the answer given, the resi-\ dents of Napier South have been lef off finding £17,770 for roads and footpaths. I am not objecting _ to this, simply because had it been given effect' t> as laid down in 1915, half the houses id Napier South would be empty today, as the rates in many eases would be equal to the interest or rent charges of dwellings in that area. Now, sir, I eome to the more serious questions and the Mayor's answers to saine. His Worship objected to my stating that the finanees of the borough had been. squandered,*and further stated that my actions were "not • crieket," which caused me to ask the questiqns, and whether. the Mayor and council; like it Or not, the answers given, to" numbers 5, 6, 7, 8 and. 9 prove up to the hilt that there is an iirgent need - for a special inquiry relating to the borough finanees and administration, as the following analysis proves: — In 1919, - witli only a quarter of a mile of iiermanent. roadway. (Emerson street), the Majror states that £15,148 was spent in road maintenance, and in 1929 £17,792, an increase ' of £2143, But, sir, the answer to number six • shows the alarming expeuditure in permanent road construction between 1919 and 1929— seven miles at a total cost of £35,800, eqnal to £5114 per mile, being almost the cost per inile of conerete formation. But what about tlie rnanifesto issned by the council, twice, before the day of the poll-, and also on the morning of tlie poll ? In face of the actual figures for the last 10 years, will the Mayor and council now explain why they urged the carrying of the loans as stated in tlieir appeal,, "Because ihe work will eliminate the heavy cost of maintaining and patching main streets" ? The Mayor's figures are as follow : — .. „ ^

j-mile 7 miles 1919. 1929. Permanent Roads. '£ £ Maintenance charges . .for all roads ... 15,148 17,792 There is also to be debited the tarsealing of 14 miles of roads, which shonld have shown a very marked reduction in road maintenance charges. The latter part of the Mayor's answer - to number six is only a fnrther proqr of the need of an inquiry. Why spen'd! all these tliousands of pounds on roads, if 'they do not stand up to the requirements of modern traffic? " Will the , Mayor now state that the seven miles . of roads at £5000 per mile are not serving the purpose for which this exceptionally heavy expenditure Was' incurred? /The answer to -number nine cmestiori cliucbes the position." 1919 1929 £ .A • Cartage costs .... 2260 1939 1 These figured show a reduction .of nearly £400, and indicate that' there . has been less repai'ring to the roads. Will the Mayor and council now do with the tramway finahces, what the Mayor and council did in 1916,? » It was then found that the trams Were a failure, and the farthing in the pound rate was discontinued, • ,and those who used the trams were made . to, pay jnereased fares to counter the bounty loss of approximately £1400 per _ annum. Now, sir, a similar position arises, apd the-i Mayor and council should stop at once- the excessive charges .for electricity (the -Mayor's figiires 'show accumulated profits of £48,054 after contributing anything up .to ' £1000 out of same for tramway losses) and witndrawthe tram bounty. If this is done, we shall then see a little clearer - through the financial maze of the 'borough. In respect to the answer on profits from water, this no doubt will be grasped by those who are now paving excessive water charges, and they can take- consolation from the^ ideal business methods now in force in. this department. In conclusion, sir, I claim I have justified my action in calhng upon my fellow ratepayers to stop the loans, which they did. I further claim that the Mayor's answers to my questions, have proved the need of an inquiry into the finanees of the borough.' from top to bottom. I feel that I am entitled to an-apology from the Mayotf. . and "council, for uncalled for criticism of my action in this matter. I want .to say that I will at any time I desire, exereise my citizenship rights_ by requesting the ratepayers to act in their own interests as such. Trusting that I have not taken up too much of your.' valuable space and thanking yon for cnmn _T ntn r>tn \

Napier, March 26, 1930.