Hide Articles List

3 articles on this Page

Advertising

NAILING A LIE TO THE COUNTER.

BANGOR MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS.

News
Cite
Share

BANGOR MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS. [TO THE EDITOR OF THE NORTH WALES OBSERVER AND EXPRESS."] Sir,—In accordance with a special resolution, passed on Friday by the Executive Committee of the Bangor Ratepayers' Association, we beg most cordially to thank for their support those electors who voted for the candidates of the Association in the various wards, and also to thank the ratepayers generally for the corteous recep- tion they gave the! representatives of. those candi- dates in the course of the contest. We wish, in leaving the matter for the present, briefly to show how unfairly the whole question was laid before the town by our opponents. Bv so doing, and confining ourselves entirely to th< question of the light supply, we shall have a reoorcl which will be of some future use. The electric light party, no doubt, influenced many votes by means of the following statements 1. Naming £ 12,000 (some said £ 10,500) as the sum required to supply light for Bangor enough to last 50 years. 2. Proposing to increase the gas storage capacity and not naming the cost. 3. Naming £30,000 or £ 40,000 as the sum re- quired by our gas storage extension scheme. Thesa statements were neither candid nor accu- rate. Even with this increased gas storage pro- posed by the electric light party El2,000 will not suffice to supply Bangor with light for 50 years. It will not without further expenditure suffice for lQ years, no not for 7 years. As the simplest calculation would at once show this, it is scarcely credible that the statement was made in ignorance. The £ 30,000 said to be required for the Gas- works by our scheme was set in the balance against the JE12,000 (the only figure named) re- quired by theirs. This was grossly unfair, because £ 30,000 would have been the probable cost of an entirely new gasworks (which no one proposed to erect at present) with a plant of double the present capacity, sufficient to last until the heaviest day's consumption touched the comparatively enormous total of one million cubic feet of gas, more than four times the present heaviest day's consumption, while the £12,000 named by our opponents as the cost of their scheme was only the initial outlay on the electric lighting, and did not even include the cost of the increased gas storage admitted to be necessary. If the initial outlay of the one had been fairly compared with the initial outlay of the other, the balance would have been found greatly in favour of the gas storage extension scheme pure and simple. Let us just for a moment consider this. The electric lighting alone, without any increased gas storage, will cost £12.000, and will give in lighting material an equivalent of 60,000 cubic feet of gas, and allowing very little to spare for emergencies. The gas storage extension scheme advocated by us would have cost for the purchase and erection of gasholder and tank £ 6000—for land and extra. say JE3000 -making a total of £ 9000, say for the sake of argument, £ 10,000. This would have given an increase in lighting material of 386,000 cubic feet of gas, and would include the acquisi- tion of about 3 acres of land. By the scheme of the electric party the initial outlay upon each equivalent of 1000 cubic feet of gas, including the cost of increased GAS storage will amount to' £ 200. By our scheme the initial outlay per 1000 cubio feet of gas would have amounted to only £26. This would mean an advantage in favour of oui scheme JS174 saved to the town for every additional equivalent of 1000Tcubic feet of gas obtained. The electric light scheme will therefore cost EIGHT TIMES as much, and will obviously uot serve the town ONE HALF as long as our prepofed gas storage extension scheme. We have troubled you with what may be re- garded as a recapitulation of the views of our a. sociatiou to further emphasise our prbtest against the Electric Lighting Scheme, because we do not believe the Bangor ratepayers have yet thoroughly realised the vast difference in the cost and effici- encv of the two rival schemes. We are satisfied that owing to the side issues raised during the recent election, the electors were, so confused that they failed to grasp the im- portance of the question submitted to them, but we believe that when the facts are placed before the Board of Trade, they will REPOSE the application for a Provisioaal Order and recommend the town to make the best of its gas property in accordance with the recommenda- tions of Mr Newbigging.—On behalf of the Asso- ciation, yours, &c. CHARLES PIERCE, PJ esH ent. J. L. VAUGHA.Y, Seorettt rv. HTHNCTCUIB^R