LETTERS TO EDITOR.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XLI, Issue 9391, 13 December 1920, Page 4

LETTERS TO EDITOR.

HAMPSTEAO LETHARGY.

Sir, —In reply to your article on Hampst'ead's shortcomings, I would like to make a few remarks, which I hope will be regarded as wholly impersonal. I* 1 or the benefit of those who , may not be aware of the necessary pre- ' liminaries to be gone through before a" loan proposal could be placed before the ratepayers, I will state a few of the necessary steps. After the amalgamation .poll was carried it would have been necessary for the clerk to have called a meeting of the board, of which due notice would have had to be given. A drainage engineer would have had to be asked to draw plans and orovide an estimate*, arid ft" would probably be two weeks before his reply was received. Judging from experience, these plans might"-net have >jeen . available under a montfc. Another meeting,! then plans forwarded to the; Health Department^ for its approval.' 'If the..,,same haste .was observed: over this asjwas the case with the' Borough plan'?, any time up to 52 weeks might elapse. -On receipt of the plans from the Department, another meet-' ing; then 'a. /ratepayers' meeting to' discuss the matter. Probably another ' two weeks over this. Then the date of the poll to be decided on, and the, same to Tse advertised for one month. How any person writing with any. destre for' accuracy . and with a full knowledge of these necessary steps to be taken can assert that all this could have been done in four or five weeks . passes ,my 'comprehension.

Regarding the compulsory - clauses of the Health Act which you quote so gaily, T take it that y3u are quite aware that the Department has possessed these self-same powers for years. They were in the old Act. I presume they are heing trotted out now to "ut the " wind up " Allenton. However, in view of the impossibility of a local body raising a loan these times (vide/ Mr Harold Beauehamp), perhaps it would be rather a relief if the Department ■ did exercise its powers in this respect and provide the money. In reference to the alleged dotey that occurred in officially acquainting the Borough Council with the result of the poll, I-may say that this bit of "redtapeism" did not affect the situation one iota, and any remarks about this are wholly beside the point. „The ." Guardian " itself suggested the' «Sad of the financial year as a suitable date for the merging of the Town District into the Borough, and no doubt ;fchis date will be adopted. You state that "the work of installing the Borough scheme has been delayed for no other reason than to accommodate Hampstead." Will you please inform me who they are waiting on novy ? A tender was accepted for a portion of the worlds on the 14th of last month, and a start has not been made yet. If the Borough ratepayers' interests are being prejudiced by delay, as you assert, why do not these "hustlers" get a move on? I wrote the "Guardian", months ago, pointing out that so far as Hampstead's scheme was concerned there was nothing to prevent the Borough from commencing its works then. You are rather in error when you say that '.'at a meeting on August 26 I urged that the matter should be settled at once, as the Borough was holding up their scheme!" If you,.consult your files again, I ( think you will find that those', remarks were made by Mr W. Thompson and not by me. However, it does not matter much as they referred to , the amalgamation poll. But you' axe deprived Vtf your text on which you base your few, strictures and soolding upon myself: -

In .conclusion, granting that Hampstead lias 1 been' ' culpably negligent, •granting there was .inexcusable delay, granting" the r "Bip „ Van Winkle" stuff, and all you charge us with, I contend that the Borough has treated Hampstdafi* shabbily.' ;When the Borough Council found tfiat Hampstead was not proceeding with its part of the undertaking, there was .one right and proper course for it to take, ,/a 1 * course dictated by common everyday courtesy between local bodies or for that matter anyone else. That was. to have officially communicated with the Town Board, drawing its attention to the delay and notifying it that failing prompt action on Hampstead's part "they regretted to inform them that they would be reluctantly compelled to proceed with their original scheme." But instead of this obvious and proper course, the Council adopted a- cavalier attitude, might I say? A paragraph in the local 1 news column, a. paragraph fathered by no one in particular, was the firr.fc ■ intimation that Hampstead received that the Borough intended leaving them in the lurch, 1 and Hampstead is not likely .to forget this high-handed action. The whole reason in a, nutshell appears to me to be that the engineer has declined to alter the. position of the septic tanks .from William Street to Trevor's Road, maintaining as he has done from the start that there was nothing to be saved by joining up two schemes, but that Hampstead could-have a much cheaper and a more efficient scheme on its own. Hampstead may ■ have "missed the bus" this time, but 'as the trend of'-prices is undoubtedly downward?, perhaps they will be the gainers in the long run. JAS. THOMPSON. Wakauui "Road. Ashbm-ton.