REPLY TO THE MAYOR

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22111, 5 June 1937, Page 19

REPLY TO THE MAYOR

LACK OF COURTESY ALLEGED CONTROVERSY OVER MEETING AT SPREYDON A reply to a statement made by the Mayor (Mr J. W. Beanland) in “The Press” yesterday was made last evening by Mr L. Rollings, president of the Spreydon Burgesses’ Association. Mr Beanland’s statement was issued in answer to a letter from Mr Rollings to the Editor of "The Press” indicating that a meeting of Spreydon residents, which he was convening to consider the rubbish dump in the district, did not wish to hear the council’s views.

“The Mayor’s outburst, personally directed against me. is difficult to understand,” said Mr Hollings. “Because of many representations made by people in the district to me. as president of the Burgesses’ Association, I am convening a meeting as advertised, so that dissatisfied persons may publicly voice their protest and decide what action, if any, should be taken. The Mayor has announced through ‘The Press’ that he would send the City Engineer and representative councillors to give expert evidence, although courtesy at least required that he should have asked permission to do so. “The peoole of Snreydon. the association intends, shall have the opportunity to take counsel together upon such a vital matter without interference. It is our duty to safeguard this. The Mayor’s remark; ‘That he will call a public meeting,’ is a matter for his own judgment. Occupying his position. I would have called it before attempting such an experiment, and taken the public into my confidence months ago. Cost of Fencing

“I note he is now going to surround this experimental germ farm with a 10-foot galvanised iron fence, approximately 50 chains on three sides, with, I suppose, the Heathcote river making the south-west boundary. With iron at £4O a ton he will spend £6OO, not counting the cost of posts, rails, nails, and labour, soy, a total of £BOO. The advantage would be negligible. “I have made inquiries through a consulting engineer why the council has never adonted a smoke-eliminating scheme for the destructor. The reply was, that although it would be possible at considerable cost, the real complaint against the destructor was the smell, and that would require a very expensive deodorising plant. It seems to me that when the council discusses the ‘smoke’ nuisance they are merety being polite by not saying the ‘smell’ nuisance.

“I think the smell will be far worse in the raw than burned, and instead of descending from the heavens and being quickly dissipated it will onlv have to rise from the ground, with huae reserves to draw upon.

“There has been nothing personal hi my attitude. The Mayor makes a personal matter of something that will eventually affect the health of all the citizens of Christchurch.”