Heathcote Ratepayers Support Hall Scheme

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30711, 29 March 1965, Page 12

Heathcote Ratepayers Support Hall Scheme

Other county councils might withdraw from the town hall fund scheme if Heathcote did not pay its share, Mr C. B. Wells, a representative of Town Hall Promotion on the City Council town hall committee, told a public meeting in the Cashmere Presbyterian Church hall on Saturday afternoon, according to a supplied report.

The meeting was called to discuss the Heathcote County Council’s questionnaire on whether Heathcote ratepayers wished to contribute through rates to the town hall fund and to discuss ways and means of ensuring an affirmative vote. A 60 per cent affirmative return is required from all ratepayers for the contribution to be made by the council. There are 2000 ratepayers in the county. The meeting unanimously decided to add to a letter, signed by several Heathcote ratepayers to be sent to all ratepayers, that it was endorsed by the public meeting and to emphasise in another printed statement that the contribution was only for stage one of the town hall scheme, and would not go towards providing offices for the Christchurch City Council. The meeting also decided to canvass by telephone. A further suggestion that a per-

sonal canvass be made was not adopted. Thirty attended the meeting and more than £2O was given to defray expenses. A further meeting will be held in St. Anne’s Church hall, Hillsborough, next Saturday afternoon. Mr G. Tait thought the questionnaire, which ratepayers will receive this week, did not distinguish between the issues of whether a contribution should be made and how. “Does it have to be additional to present rates?” he asked.

Mr C. L. Martin, who was elected chairman of the meeting, replied that it would have to be regarded as additional to present rates, the plan being to pay 9s in £lOOO capital value for the next nine years. Cr. L. L. Smith, of the Heahtcote County Council, said that after the council had decided not to contribute to the fund there had been

strong criticism. When it was brought forward again six months later (the shortest time constitutionally in which the matter could be discussed again) it was derided to ask the ratepayers if they wished the council to contribute.

He had drawn up a brochure which the council had rejected because of its length. A much shorter explanation was incorporated in the questionnaire. “I feel that because of the lack of information there is every possibility of an adverse vote,” said Cr. Smith.

He was asked by Mr N. H. Buchanan on what ground the council had decided not to contribute and replied that he thought the council wanted to keep the rates to a bare minimum. Professor R. S. Allan asked who had thought up the “mystic figure of 60 per cent?”

Cr. Smith said his own original proposal was for 60 per cent of the returned votes to be affirmative.

Mr W. Rosenberg (the meeting secretary): Much fairer.

Miss Ngaio Marsh thought what was necessary was a change of opinion in the whole area. Dr. R. M. Allison said it was important to point out that ratepayers in the area were not being asked to contribute to Christchurch City Council buildings. Mr Rosenberg said that his attitude was, “I do not like to get something for nothing.”