Riccarton Borough ripe for abolition?

Press, 24 August 1977, Page 20

Riccarton Borough ripe for abolition?

One of the simplest and most obvious changes leading to the eventual unification of Christchurch would be the “abolition” of Riccarton Borough. Like Dunedin, with its island of local privilege and independence, St Kilda, we have our left-over, Riccarton. Here, the council can “hold rates,” or at least not have the biggest increases going these days, safe in the knowledge that no-one will deny the residents any of the benefits of the city or counties just over the border, except say library books. If Riccarton makes any governmental sense, then Brighton, Sumner, Sydenham and you name it, should have the option of their own pocket handkerchief selfdetermination. Riccarton does contribute some moneys to metropolitan ventures, apart from drainage, transport, and hospitals (about which there is no real option), but one reason for their financial success is their quite extraordinarily lucky boundary. Consider this boundary. It runs the length of Deans Avenue, missing the maintenance costs of Hagley Park. Where it reaches the Avon, the river ceases to be public reserve (except for Mona Vale, shared with the city) and generally speaking ceases to incur costs. When the new Christchurch Girls’ High School site was picked in this corner, Riccarton wanted it elsewhere. On the north and west the boundary misses Christchurch Boys’ High School by yards, does the same with the Uni-

By N. A. GRIFFITH, secretary of the Political Renewal Group, an organisation which seeks to arouse greater public interest in national and local politics. Further articles on local government in Christchurch will appear next week.

versity and leaves Waimairi County footing the bills incurred by having large nonratable State properties in its territory. It misses Kirkwood Intermediate, too. Since the west boundary runs down Wharenui Road it also excludes Middleton Park which is in Paparua County. Deans Bush is also outside, though there is a difference here since, like the museum, it is controlled by a trust and all city ratepayers contribute.

There are virtually no reserves or playing fields or similar contributions to metropolitan Christchurch, except Mona Vale which is certainly a clear credit. The Wharenui swimming pool could have been Riccarton’s responsibility. Apparently their thinking is that the whole Canterbury reigon should pay for this pool. Considering all this, it is not surprising the Mayor (Mr Harrington), was quoted last May as saying people are better off in Riccarton than the city, rates being 20 per cent lower. Areas with natural commercial focus, and some community of interest such as Riccarton has, could make out good cases for having some kind of community council. But there is no way Riccarton could pretend to be a truly distinct and separate organism within metropolitan Christchurch. It has a natural boundary in Deans Avenue, and could more or less have one along Blenheim Road, which it crosses in a strange gumboot shape running round to the Moorhouse Avenue-Lincoln Road corner.

But to the west, the boundary is capricious, cutting the suburb half-way to Church Corner (still Riccarton, but not borough). To the north it also has nothing to do with community of interest and simply follows some road lines and some stream lines, ail very inconsequential. Riccarton Borough residents must obviously include many users of the metropolitan streets. . arking buildings, Square, parks and reserves, non-ra’-eabl" State properties (outside Riccarton boundaries), beaches, and so on. Any local authority with a

boundary as astonishingly lucky as Riccarton’s is, should surely be willing to tell as a matter of open government and common conscience, what the borough spends on metropolitan services and assets outside its boundaries.

Mr Harrington has in the past asserted Riccarton contributes to metropolitan facilities, and that Riccarton would consider helping with the proposed new city library f ,r examnle. ■ the borough’s “Newsletter for August” a grant of $l5OO is listed for Queen Elizabeth II Park (a “City” Council facilitv' and

an estimate of $14,000 is provided for the Christchurch Town Hall for the 1377-78 year. Thus Riccarton accepts a principle. But the principle is onlv p .llv applied.

Riccarton is where debate on the unification of Christchurch could begin. So here are some challenges for the Christchurch people of Riccarton Borough. What do you say to the general challenge that Riccarton Borough (became of its boundary) is excessively lucky in what it does not have to pay for? What justification can you offer for tiny Riccarton hav-

ing its own electricity supply authority? What does Riccarton contribute to Wharenui Pool and whv does the borough not willingly pay the whole cost? Wh-»t is the whole cost? What is meant (in the borough’s August Newsletter) by the remark that the club operates Wharenui Pool “on behalf of the council?” Since most Riccarton residents must have to find employment and leisure services outsid the borough, what matching responsibility does your counci, accept for your use of other local bodies’ facilities?