Town Hall Issue For Heathcote Ratepayers

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30603, 20 November 1964, Page 14

Town Hall Issue For Heathcote Ratepayers

The Heathcote County Council decided last evening to ask its ratepayers whether it should contribute to the town hall scheme, from which it withdrew last March.

On the motion of Cr. L. L. Smith, the council decided to send a questionnaire early next year to all ratepayers. If 60 per cent of all ratepayers favour contributing to stage 1 of the town hall, Heathcote will support the scheme.

The questionnaire will indicate to the ratepayers the cost to them if the financing is done under what has become known as the Paparua County Council scheme, whereby the total cost is reduced by reducing the interest burden. Cr. Smith said that his tentative figures for the Heathcote county area under the Paparua scheme showed that about 8s per £lOOO of capital value each year would be needed. On his own property this would amount to about £2 10s a year.

Cr. Smith said he believed the council was somewhat hasty in withdrawing from the project last March. He believed the Heathcote ratepayers regarded themselves as part of the family of the metropolitan area of Greater Christchurch, and he believed that Christchurch as a whole genuinely desired to erect a town hall worthy of the city. The council should at least consult its ratepayers to obtain their confirmation of that view. Not to do so was to assume that they did not regard themselves as part of the metropolitan city of Christchurch. “Our area is dependent upon the city area in many ways,” he said. “I am sure that in the case of any emergency or disaster this area would like to be regarded as a member of the metropolitan family and look to the city for assistance and vice versa. I feel that we should ask our ratepayers to state their views. “The Waimairi and Paparua counties have agreed to participate, as has the Riccarton Borough Council. Do we wish to be regarded as the poor relation of Greater Christchurch when this important matter is being considered. This motion does not call for a final decision now. All it does is to seek the views of those who elected us.” Cr. J. S. Scott said that Heathcote could not hide its head in the sand. “We’re all in the metropolitan area

and we should pull together,” he said. “I feel we have been a bit hasty.” Mr C. D. Le Comte, the county chairman, reminded the council that the decision to withdraw had been unanimous. “I don't think anyone even spoke against it,” he said. “What was behind it was that we had frequently been carried along on a scheme simply because we were represented on a body. It happened with the Summit road —our representative agreed although the council did not.” Mr Le Comte said that as well as Heathcote depending on the city, the city depended on Heathcote. Heathcote’s ratepayers dealt in the city, thereby contributing to the city’s rates, and all the ratepayers’ earnings were spent in the city. When the city took over the Mount Pleasant area it also took over the Cannon Hill estate —“what we considered a lush area,” he said. “They can’t take our rating potential and our contributions as well. We are gradually having our rating potential whittled away, and we are being left with the bits and pieces.” Cr. E. L. Tyndall said the reason for the council’s withdrawal from the town hall scheme was that it had not been getting enough information about the project and

I what it was going to cost. Since then, much more information had had been given. “This council is quite sympathetic," he said, "but it should be a referendum of ratepayers." Reverting to the topic of the county’s obligations to the city, Mr Le Comte said that in eight years of local body affairs he had received only one invitation to a civic reception, and that was on the occasion of a Royal visit. “I’ve given the matter a great deal of thought,” he said, “and that was the only one." He added that the county's contribution to the town hall would be added to the rates. All the other bodies—Riccarton, Paparua, and Waimairi—had new council offices, but Heathcote would already have to impose an additional rate on its ratepayers for its new offices. Cr. Smith said the city had taken over the areas referred to with the approval of the residents concerned. "There was opposition.” said Mr Le Comte. "And they virtually ruined our water scheme when they took over Cannon Hill.” Cr. Smith said the council would be doing the democratic thing with a questionnaire to ratepayers. “There was a lot of criticism when we made our decision to withdraw," he said. “There were editorials in the newspapers.”