PANNELLS AVENUE

Press, Volume LXXV, Issue 22795, 22 August 1939, Page 13

PANNELLS AVENUE

TO TBX SDITOX OF Tax PEEt> Sir, —Regarding Mr C, Flavell’s explanation to Mr F. A. Brettell s letter, might I be permitted to correct an error that it might convey to the public. Mr Flavell states that Mr Veale was asked to sign a statutory declaration vouching for the signatures of those who signed the petition. The declaration form that Mr Veale was asked to sign reads as follows; —“The signatures affixed to the annexed petition are those of not less than one-fourth of the electors.” This clearly shows that Mr Veale was requested to certify only to one-fourth of the signatures and not the lot, as would appear from Mr Flavell’s statement. However, to overcome this difficulty we offered to bring in the necessary number of ratepayers (about 12) to certify to their signatures, but Mr Veale replied he was too busy to see them. It is quite obvious then that the Heathcote County Counell has not been too generous in its actions in regard to this - petition. In conclusion, may I state that this difficulty has now been overcome and the ultimate result is now in sight.—Yours, etC " PETITIONER. August 19, 1939. to tn Ksrroi 6w Tax press. Sir, —In reference correspondence in "The Press,” may I say that I wish to confirm the statements contained in the letters of Messrs Beardsley and Brettell; and to express the urgent need for amalgamation of this area with the city of Christchurch. Some of the residents are called upon by the Heathcote County Council to pay rates of more than £l7 a year (including water rate) on their four-roomed bungalows. For years past the avenue must have been a gold-mine to the council. The service it renders is practically nil: even the sweeping of the side-channels is too much for it. , The situation having become intolerable, the residents are determined to bring about amalgamation of their district with the city of Christchurch, in spite of all opposition of the members of the Heathcote County. Council, which, as a body in our opinion, wants sweeping away. Obstructive tactics will get us nowhere. The statement of the county clerk that he would not sign the statutory declaration vouching for the signatures of the. petitioners, her cause ,he had not actually seen them sign their names, is not only "redtape” hut childish. Why should he consider the signatures fraudulent when they were certified to by two responsible and honourable persons, viz., Messrs Beardsley and Watson?— Yours, etc., ONE OF THE PETITIONERS. August 21, 1939.