AMALGAMATION WITH CITY

Press, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 23751, 24 September 1942, Page 6

AMALGAMATION WITH CITY

Sir, —As reported in "The Press" today, the representative of the Riccarton Borough objected to an increased levy being paid to the Christchurch Domains Board. Unfortunately such an attitude is only too typical of the Riccarton Borough Council. Within the borough there is not one improved public playground, and so Hagley Park is Riccarton's only breathing space; and yet it in outside the borough boundary! Children who live in the borough, and particularly those on the south side of Riccarton road, are forced to play on the streets. There is Riccarton Bush, but it is not a playground, and not maintained by the borough. There are two aspects to the question of rates. One is the amount paid; and the other is what the residents get in return for those rates. I am sure that Cr. Lyons would receive great support if he submitted an amalgamation proposal to the residents of Riccarton.— Yours, etc., RICCARTON. September 23, 1942.

Sir, —When districts as far away as Mount Pleasant and New Brighton are being brought under control of the City Council, why are we in the Murray Aynsley Hill area, only three miles from Cathedral square, still subject to Heathcote County administration? In Vernon terrace, for example, the county has recently filled our cup of woes to the brim by raking a light covering of sharp stones over the hard surface of an asphalted road strip which provided our only access for comfortable walking. The results, in twisted ankles and cut footwear, will be fully understood by Heathcote councillors (and their wives) if they take a walk along this way.—Yours, etc., OH. FOR-THE CITY. September 23, 1942.