PAPANUI MEMORIAL HALL.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20729, 14 December 1932, Page 17

PAPANUI MEMORIAL HALL.

I TO THB SDITOU OB THB KISSS. Sir,— Tho statement of Or. ,1. McCombs regarding the Papanui Memorial Hall convoys the impression that lie is : the/ instigator of the opposition to the Hall Amendment Bill, and his action ; in having the. Bill withdrawn is apparently to protect his Wooiston. con- ' stitucnti he seems to have a wrong idea, of the. position, and confuses tho rate, struck for tho, loan with the. rates levied by tho City Council. When the ; hall waa built it "was in tho Waiinairi ' County, and no rates were lovied. In fact, if there had been the slightest idea that rates wore to be levied, there .would never have been a brick laid. Ibis, additional burden imposed by tho City Council is tho penalty for a part :of the loan area coming within tho , City boundaries, and is in no way a portion of the liability incurred by the poll of the ratepayers. It is true that • tno library portion has been exempted from rates, but for this small concession there is no credit duo to the present Council. It was onlv after -many representations were- made, and it was pointed out that tho Papanui hbrarv was tho only one in tho City on which rates were collected, that the last Conned removed the injustice. In regard to tho new valuation referred . to. by Mr McCombs. although the library is the most valuable part of the building and occupies the whole frontago to Papanui road, tho Council in ■ its generosity deducted onlv £ll from tho total demand of £B2. 'This is out of all proportion, when £2O and more is paid in rates for adjacent shops with but 20 feet of frontage. Mr McComl«, being a Citv Councillor., should be as considerate towards the Papanui residents as he is towards the "Wooiston people who send him to Parliament. If there is no reason why the Wooiston people should pav a E.imite fraction of a pennv towards a Papanui hall, there should bo no, reason for the Papanui people to pav for tho upkoeo of the Addinaton or'the Linwood libraries, or even the purchase of n library site at St. Martins, when thev have built and paid for a librnrv of their own. It is more unreasonable to expect the Wnimairi ratepayers to pay the City rates on a City property. Woolston lias a sea-elephant, and it is going to cost the conntrv something, to drag it out to sea. To Mr MoOombs's argument to its logical conclusion, the Pf>i,anui and all the other people of the Dominion would ho acting within their rights in refusing to contribute towards that cost. In reply to the many representations the City Council has always expressed sympathy, but said it had no authority to exempt the hall from rates, and after- convincing arguments, it was eyen.tua.lly decided to promote legislation to gain tho necessary authority. The. most contemptible part of Ufe whole business is the manner in which tho Bill was withdrawn. Behind closed doors, without notifying anyone of their intentions, the City Council reversed its decision, and in tho dead of ihe night wired to Mr H. Holland, M.P., who was in charge of the Bill, to withdraw it immediately. This undemocratic business is hard to understand, when we hare, on tho City Council two Labour M.P.'s who were loud in the protests in the Hon.se when the "closure" was applied. This is far worse than uho On Monday niaht. an ailempb waa made by Cr. Baker to disclose the facts to tbo public, and they have a right to know, bub on tho motion "f Cr. Lyons, the "gag" was noplied and •ainported by all the Labour City Councillors. There are very few of the Couneil'oi's who hove an intimate knowledge of tho oosition, but there is one point I should like Mr McCombs to answer. When tho loan is fully paid off and the liability of tho Wnimniri County ceases entirely, the hall then definitely bcinsr, a City property, if there is. any deficiency accruing from City- rates, who will be responsible to meet it?— Yours, etc.. J. STUUROCK. December 13th, 1932.