NEW BRIGHTON AFFAIRS

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21941, 16 November 1936, Page 5

NEW BRIGHTON AFFAIRS

TO THE EDITOB OF THE 1-RFU9. Sir, —I have to thank your correspondent, “Clear Sight,” for the opportunity of dealing with the New Brighton reading scheme and correcting some of the statements made in his letter. In the first place he refers to parochialism.- Such a question does not enter into this matter. It would not matter if it was in the north, south, or centre, the principle involved is just the same. He states that I should be aware of the fact that this road has been dedicated, I do claim to have some considerable knowledge of the proposed road, but if the road has been accepted as a dedicated road, it must have been so accepted by the present council. The matter has been considered by several previous councils, all of which, under the advice of the Borough Solicitor, refused to accept it as such and thereby relieve those responsible for its formation. Some years ago the council, in order to relieve the syndicate of the rates of an area which it had marked off for a proposed road, accepted the area as a road reserve, the council and ratepayers being protected by a condition being laid down that the council was not to be held responsible for any formation. Later a request was made for relief labour to be engaged to form a track along this road and just before the last council went out of office the matter was referred to a sub-commit-tee to report. The committee’s recommendation. which was confirmed by the council, was to the effect that the council should not do any work on this road and so involve the ratepayers of New Brighton, but those interested should try to obtain the labour direct from the Unemployment Department. “Clear Sight” uses the same argument as the Mayor used at the special meeting of the council, i.e. £6O a week would be spent in the borough, and spoke of co-operation with the Government. But £6O spent in the district for a few weeks will not recompense the ratepayers of New Brigh- j ton, or Greater Christchurch, as it will be ere long, for the burden of completing this read and maintaining it in anything like good order. We all know that all oast councils and the present have more than they can do to maintain the present formed roads, I have “looked on the unemployment problem through humanitarian eyes”; in fact, that was my sm in the eyes of seme people. I advocated the employment of all able-bodied men on relief while the Government was willing to pay relief wages and the council did so. Some £25,204 12s Id in one year was circulated in the borough. Is it not a fact that more than 400 registered unemployed live in New Brighton at present and yet very few are employed on relief work. Co-oper-ation, a word we frequently hear in the borough, does no! even exist on the council on the road scheme, as I notice from your paper’s report of the special meeting that several of the council held similar views to my own on this question, and this in spite of a reminder by the Mayor of an election pledge to form this road. To whom was the promise made? —Yours, etc, E. A. M. LEAVER. November 13, 1936.