The Press THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1950. Tramway Board Loan Foil

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26265, 9 November 1950, Page 6

The Press THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1950. Tramway Board Loan Foil

The approval given bv Christchurch ratepayers yesterday to a loan of £950.000 to rehabilitate the city's decaying passenger transport system is satisfactory, although it is far from satisfactory that only about one ratepayer in five bothered to vote oq a matter that closely .touches both their conveni-; ence and their pockets. Now that the ratepayers, feme by affirmative vote and some by silent consent, have given their general support to a modernisation scheme, the board has the heavy responsibility of spending a very large sum of money to the best advantage. Although past performances of the present board, with its Labour majority, are not encouraging, citizens will have substantial protection from the general supervision to be exercised over the spending pf the morev by the Local Government Loans Board. Some uneasiness will persist unless the board reconsiders its decision that the firjt stage oY conversion from trams to rubber-tyred vehicles will be to put trolley-buses on- the Sumner and New Brighton routes. Nothing has vet been said to disprove the contention that trolley-buses are uneconomic for these routes because time-tables of payable frequency cannet be supported by the public patronage offering. An additional argument against trolleybuses for these routes is the necessity to use Diesel or petrol buses to serve some parts of the Sumner and N%w Brighton districts. In any case the board, apparently soon to yield its functions to the City Council, should make no commitments tying the hands of its probable successor for 30 years or more, without prior consultation. Fortunately. there is some evidence that the Loans Board is likely to favour this procedure. The board, particularly the Citizens’ Association members, who have loyally supported a scheme they have good reason to think inferior to their own, is to be congratulated on gaining the necessary support for so large a loan. But it should not be overlooked that the board must share with the .majority of ratepayers some responsibility for the poorness o'f the poll. First, the date was badly chosen, both because it fell in Carnival Week, and because the imminence of the local government elections was confusing to some people. Second, the board did not give ratepayers the precis? information they were entitled to have. Third, the Labour majority on the bOjird, by its activities before the last election, had done much to undermine public appreciation of thp very real need for a comprehensive scheme. But. when all this has been said, the fact remains that too many ratepayers neglected their duty, and by doing so supported the case of those who wish to abolish, or modify, the right of ratepayers to decide on loan proposals. If ratepayers do not value that right sufficiently to exercise it on an issue of such importance, they provide an argument for those who believe that ratepayers’ loan polls are an unnecessary complication in local government. Certainly, no one can say confidently that a vote by 20 per cent, of those eligible accurately expresses the opinion of ratepayers.