THE PROPOSED ROAD LOAN.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXX, Issue 3584, 25 July 1912, Page 6

THE PROPOSED ROAD LOAN.

(to the editor. 1 ,Sir, —A local in y ours of the _ 17th inst states that “the Mayor pointed out that some- confusion existed in the minds of ratepayers in connection with tlie loan for which a poll is to be taken on the 31st inst.” He then proceeds to point out “that the loan for roads is not a new loan,” bnt that tlie poll is to be taken to legalise the loan taken in Deminber last. His explanation is so disingenuous that lie had better keep silent. His explanation only confounds former so-called confusion.

Tlie ratepayers know as well as the Mayor does that the loan fo-r roads is pot a new loan. They also know that tlie money authorised for these works has been obtained and that £15,000 at least has been completely sunk upon works to convey a -mass of material on to our streets containing 90 or 95 per cent, of rubbish. ’Unit is if the so-called stone recently put upon some of our streets, and notably Ormond Road) is a fair sample of the material, and we are hound to accept it as -such. This £15,000 is sought to he replaced, and he used for putting more of this rubbish on tlie roads, only to create slush, and quagmire, and after a few weeks, at most a couple of months, to he scraped off again- Surely the ratepayers see by giving the Council power to obtain this £15.000 to be thus spent it will increase there burdens and’ difficulties without the hope of the slightest permanent benefit, and therefore should withhold their legal sanction. Your report of whatthe Mayor explained is intended in a sense to bluff the ratepayers, hut it is a frank admission of the Council having in December last agreed to borrow this large sum, and then at some future date (which no doubt the Council knew must come shortly) they would be pressed for funds, then with some such specious representation as the Mayor made, the ratepayers would he so blinded by the bluff as not to see the true position. They would legalise the new loan (for it is nothing else than a new loan) which had been so illegally obtained. Every right-minded ratepayer must withhold his vote for such lean, and lor all other loans they may bo asked for as an evidence that a Council and Mayor, who have shown in so many instances, gross incapacity to administer tlie public works schemes committed to them by the ratepayers. Not only has incapacity and lack of administrative ability been shown by fhe Council, but also by members of the staff in positions of authority, proof of -which is - there is scarcely anv portion of tne various works but what has been in some parts badly bungled and bad t-o be pulled to pieces and largely reconstructed. The public know it, and justly condemn the gross waste in many places, gross and unneeded extravagance in others, and in them all an utter contempt for the comfort, convenience and interests of ratepayers. The Council quietly accepts and endorses it all, by its silence and acquiescence in it all. Just look at the un needed inconvenience caused the public in putting down the tram line in Gladstone Road, where the road line was level, yet from 41) to 50 chains must be broken up, no provision for crossing intersecting streets, either by foot pasongors or vehicles, when all materials should have been on the ground and at any rate not more than from 5 to 10 chains of the road opened up at once. The public are curious to know why the loop made at the intersection of Grey Street could not have been made round the fire hell at Bright Street, and thus saved the expense of its removal. Oh, Sir. much could bo written on these subjects. At any rate it is commonly agreed that in the matter of laying the tram line an immense savwould have resulted had the worn been let by contract. —I am, etc., “RATEPAYER.”