Local Elections

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31802, 5 October 1968, Page 12

Local Elections

Sir,—Thank you for your article today, and I was relieved to learn that “no major issues" face us, the Waimairi electors. Although I spend at least a third of my life in the City of Christchurch, earning' my living, I am denied a voice in the affairs of the city because my residence happens to be situated beyond the present limits. No wonder apathy is rife among so many electors! After all, “no major issues face us”! Who cares a fig for the Waimairi County Council, anyway? Until one comes to reside in Christchurch the name signifies completely nothing. Meanwhile, your paper for the last month or more has been full of contentious civic affairs which affect me as well as most other county residents. The answer is, of course, territorial amalgamation, which must eventually prevail over our present outmoded and wasteful system.—. Yours, etc., O. PICTON JONES. October 3, 1968.

Sir,—The chairman of the Waimairi County Council must be well aware that it is not only Cr Guthrey who knows the importance of further amalgamation to the future development of Christchurch. In 1945, a Parliamentary Select Committee on local government, referring specifically to Christchurch, said: “There are several territorial authorities administering an area which could be administered by a single responsible body.” Again, in 1960 the Local Bills Committee reporting on the structure of local government in New Zealand, found that “local authorities are too numerous” and that “the evidence studied by us shows that the structure of local government is now revealing some major weaknesses, particularly In those areas where there has been substantial urban development.” If Christchurch is to develop as it should, it is essential that our local body structure be rationalised, without regard to narrow or selfish interests.—Yours, etc., HELEN GARRETT. October 4, 1968. Sir, —As a City Councillor

1 will work for the implementation of equal pay for equal work. Will any Citizens’ candidate give me a hand?— Yours, etc., B. ALDERDICE. October 3, 1968.

Sir, —Years of protest against the growing dognuisance in Christchurch have brought precisely no result. A public menace is surely a political issue. May I place before municipal candidates and electors the relevant principles and a practical programme? (a) Dog-owners keep pets at the expense of their neighbours, (b) The more hygienic a city, the more dog-owning should be restricted, (c) No citizen should have a legal right to subject others to molestation, (d) Under existing laws, dogowners create public offence for which humans would be prosecuted. I suggest the following programme for the incoming council: increase in dog licence fees; one licence only per household, with minimum area of section; reduction of licences to fixed number per city mesh-block; use of fees for proper dog inspection; prohibition of aggressive breeds. The details would need to be worked out. May we know the views of the parties and candidates?— Yours, etc., ADVANCE CHRISTCHURCH. October 4, 1968.