ADMINISTRATION OF THE CITY

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21705, 12 February 1936, Page 12

ADMINISTRATION OF THE CITY

POWERS OF COUNCIL

BEAUTIFYING ASSOCIATION'S DISCUSSIONS

"We don't seem to be cutting much ice with the City Council lately." This comment from a member of the Christchurch Beautifying Association, which met last night, was made upon a series of rebuffs to suggestions which the association has made to the City Council. One reply in particular was discussed at length. The association had asked that sanitary pipes facing the street should be camouflaged. However, it was not a matter for the City Council, the association was told. It concerned the Drainage Board. "As if the Drainage Board could be expected to bother about the appearance of the city!" one member said. "Its business is to see to the disposal of sewerage." The •'multiplicity of local bodies" was disparaged. A situation, where the head authority of the city had no jurisdiction over a board, was extraordinary, it was said. The trouble, the meeting agreed, was that the City Council had overlooked this point when the building by-laws were framed. Now it was putting the blame upon the Drainage Board. There was discussion on the control of the city in general. Words frequently used were "eyesore" and "monstrosity." Once the city had been truly beautiful; now it was deteriorating, members said. Many blocks of flats were causing it to lose its individuality. It was hard, for those who would pride themselves upon the beauty of the city, to look upon unsightly fences and hoardings and untidy roadsides—all of them eyesores, and some of them monstrosities. Before the meeting were two cases of the City Council's lack of nower. It had not the power to remove hoardings, nor could it combat what might grow into a fearsome array of sanitary [ pipes'.