Compiled by Cameron McCullough
THE first semi-final in the Mornington Peninsula Football Association was played on Saturday last between Mornington and Somerville in the Frankston Park.
The weather during Saturday morning was rather discouraging, as rain was falling.
Anyhow in the afternoon the sun shone and a splendid match was the result.
There was a large crowd of spectators in attendance; the gate amounting to £40.
Somerville fielded a strong team, and so did Mornington.
Final scores:
Somerville, 8 goals 10 behinds.
Mornington, 7 goals.7 behinds.
Somerville deserve credit for their good win. On the day Mornington were beaten by a better team.
Mornington team and supporters were surprised at Somerville’s victory and fell heavily, but it was generally admitted that the better team won.
Seen after the match and congratulated on their win the Somerville captain (N. Unthank) said it had been a fine game all through with an utter absence of any malice or unnecessary roughness.
The Mornington captain (Don. Hutchins) expressed the same opinion, and when asked to sign a protest he point blank refused, saying that if Mornington could not win on their merits he for one did not want it on a protest.
***
Foreshore Erosion – Complaints For Mornington
Reference to foreshore erosion on the eastern side of Port Phillip Bay and to the damage done by storm conditions at Mornington were made on Wednesday by a deputation representing Mornington foreshore committee that waited on the State Minister of Works to request financial assistance from the Government towards efforts to cope with the problem.
One speaker maintained that the work of widening and deepening The Rip had led to higher tides in the bay; thus accentuating the erosion that was taking place.
The Minister of Lands (Mr. Downward, Member for Mornington) introduced the deputation.
The chairman of the foreshore committee (Mr. L. J. Flanagan) said the committee had spent as much money as it could afford in putting up a wall 96 feet in length near the approach to Fisherman’s Beach.
Erosion was going on steadily and rapidly, and the deputation desired to make a request for Government assistance in extending the protecting wall.
The Government might grant half the cost, and advance the other half on the understanding that the committee paid it back at the rate of, say, £25 a year.
Cr. F. M. Linley said despite certain estimates that the work of protecting the foreshore would cost “thousands of pounds”, a good 1000 feet wall could be erected by the expenditure of about £300, which it was suggested the Government might advance.
If the erosion continued at its present rate, the Esplanade might “go down into the Bay”.
The Minister said the request of the deputation opened up a big question – that of the cost of preventing erosion of the whole of the eastern side of the Bay.
Undoubtedly very serious erosion was going on, and there was a big question as to the responsibility of municipalities in coping with the problem, how the necessary money should be raised, and what contribution the Government should make.
These matters had not been definitely dealt with as yet. The particular case represented by the deputation really opened up the whole question.
He was surprised to hear that a suitable wall could be built for £300. Mr. Harris, M.L.C., when acting Minister of Works, had received a big deputation on the general question of foreshore protection, and he (the Minister) could confer with Mr. Harris and Cabinet on the subject.
***
Electric Light System – Ratepayer’s Criticism.
To the Editor.
Sir,
The report upon the electric supply system of the Shire of Frankston and Hastings, published in the last issue of “The Standard” indicates that the electric light department of the Shire is badly in need of overhaul.
The total power taken from the State Electricity Commission during the last financial year is stated at 196,020 units, and the units sold by the council to the consumers amounted to 157,182, the difference, 38,838 units represent the transformer and distribution losses council’s reticulation system, an efficiency of 80.2 percent, which appears too low.
It should be observed that the Commission’s charge per unit covers the transmission losses over the Commission’s lines up to the substation at Frankston.
The essential details necessary for full technical and economic consideration of the administration of the electric light department, and the merits of the proposals submitted to the electric light are not disclosed in the report.
For example, the administration and running costs of the electric light department for the last financial year are shown at £6556, which is a very important item.
Apparently it is this item of expenditure which mainly accounts for the necessity of the council charging the local consumers 108 per cent above the Commission’s charges.
The estimated expenditure for the current financial year is stated at £7366, an increase of. £810. What is the cause of this increased expenditure? The casual manner in which this item of expenditure is mentioned in the report greatly detracts from the merits of the proposals.
It is disturbing to learn that the council has not been informed until recently of the correct financial position of the electric light department, and that the department should have been permitted to drift into its present chaotic position.
Since the falling off of the work of fitting new installations, sales, etc., has any reduction been made in the staff of employees of the council’s electric light department?
One of the reasons given for the present financial position of the department is that extensions have been paid for out of revenue, instead of loan money, which should have been provided by the council, with adequate provision for interest and redemption payments.
Because the council have failed to provide the necessary loan money for extensions, the electric, light department propose to call upon the ratepayers to provide funds for extensions.
It is understood that in a number of cases extensions involving, heavy expenditure have been paid for by consumers requiring supply.
I feel sure it will be generally agreed that the report submitted to the electric light committee discloses a very unsatisfactory state of affairs, and the measures proposed to balance accounts by further loading the already over-taxed ratepayer requires careful investigation into the management of this department of the council’s activities.
A decision of the council to refer the matter for complete investigation by a special committee appointed by the council, with the necessary authority and professional advice, would be welcomed by the ratepayers.
Yours, etc
F. G. CRESSWELL. “Wyantoak”, Frankston
***
From the Pages of the Frankston and Somerville Standard, 27 August 1926