Local government

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32774, 26 November 1971, Page 8

Local government

Sir,—l cannot agree with your editorial that had the Christchurch metropolitan area been under one local authoritv all this wrangling would not have occurred. The controversy was not a product of fragmentation (though exacerbated by it) but of politics, and the larger the area the more scope for politics. I would agree that regional matters must be decided regionally, but I think we must find a wav of doing this without destroying the local nature of local government in local matters. In theory it may be more economic to have one large body but as w e have just seen this does not always happen in practice. Monopoly does not always breed efficiency and we must not forget Lord Acton’s famous dictum. Perhaps it may be worth paying extra to get a local government, which, in a more limited sphere than at present, remains close to and involves its constituents. —Yours, etc., S. V. R. YOUNG. November 24. 1971.

Sir, —The Local Government Commission must be joking. Surely they know that Christchurch has been like this since the Four Ships sailed into Lyttelton, and parochial interests will override any alteration to the status quo. The chances of such progressive thinking getting through the local thickheads is mighty slim, and the likelihood of their realising that unity is strength is even slimmer. However, it is good to see the commission trying. —Yours, etc., PINITUS. November 24, 1971. Sir,—Before Mr Collett was re-elected to Mayor of Lyttelton I gained the impression he was against amalgamation. Now he is in favour of ft. How would Lyttelton benefit? Our rates would increase and I suppose it would still cost us 20 cents each time we used the tunnel, which we have to do if we want any entertainment, as there are no picture theatres or places of entertainment in the port. What are all the benefits that Lyttelton residents would get?—Yours, etc., PENSIONER. November 24, 1971.