THE RAISING OF LOANS—AND AFTER.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXX, Issue 3539, 1 June 1912, Page 8

THE RAISING OF LOANS—AND AFTER.

(to THE pDITOR.) Sir, —It may be freely granted that those persons elected.to Borough Councils and other public bodies, when they may see fit to advise the raising of money for the purpose of carrying out public works, are actuated by the very best motives. One councillor, I noticed, has stated that the Council lias been “grossly misinformed” as to one estimate of the cost of the house connections of the sewerage system, from the street to the back door sink, the probable cost when the loan was asked for being given as £l2, and now he affirmed it was found to be£4o to £SO. Ido not know what profit the plumbers expect to make put of each installation, of which I believe there will be over one thousand; butit can hardly be expected they will do the work at cost price; but whatever such profit may be, I submit that it was unwise (to say the least) on the part -of the Council to grant a monopoly of the work to the plumbers, the licensed number of whom at present is 15 only. Of course, if tlje Council were prepared to stipulate that they should work to a set of fixed prices for each item required, and an estimate of the cost of labor, theis objection would be met. The Council, I believe, has experts in its employ who could attend to such a detail. Your correspondent- “Hard Up” also points out the inadequacy of an advance of £l2 to pay for the work required, and thinks that £3O would be nearer the mark, and then proceeds,

“To start with, the ratepayers as a whole have to find the interest, say 4| per cent., on the loan, and on ton of that those who take advantage of the advance have to pay an extra 5 per cent for the use of the money (making a total of 94 uer cent, interest on it). My own feeling is that ratepayers should, as things at present stand, get the use of the advance free of cost.” I o.uite agree with him and think that he has pointed to two grave defects of the scheme. It is somewhat strange they have not been noticed before. But I would even go further than he does, as I claim it would be only fair and just, seeing that the work referred to is a compulsory one, and being so, is really and truly as much a part of the full scheme as are the pipes that are laid in the street, septic tank, and all the rest of it. Council has not in the past been looking at it in this light, but perhaps that body may be induced to do so, and not call upon each poor ratepayer to do the impossible in trying to find £4O or £SO to pay for something that he lias no control over, and does not truly own, even if he could pay for it in full. The interest on all the loans, and the increased rates, are quite as much as anyone should be called upon to pay, by-laws notwithstanding. Did the Gisborne ratepayers, when they voted for £IO,OO of the loan to help them to do this work, dream even that they would have to put their hands in their pockets for a further thirty or forty thousand pounds more or take the consequences ? It seems to me that a just and right course would he to obtain the ratepayers’ sanction to a further loan for this work, say £30,000 to £50,000, and thus enable the needed work to be carried out in the first instance free to all, including the plumbing part of it, and thus the only burden (and quite enough) to be borne by the ratepayers would be to pay the interest only on the additional money borrowed. I am, etc., POOR MAN.