WADESTONW TRAMS.

Evening Post, Volume LXXII, Issue 93, 17 October 1906, Page 10

WADESTONW TRAMS.

» *O THB EDITOB. Sir,—As the poll on the proposal of the Onslow Council to borrow £28,500 for tramway construction is to be taken next week, and as this ia a matter of vital concern to » large section of your readers, I trust you will 1 allow ma space in your columns to offer * lew remarks on the achemer

The total area of the South Ward — which will have to bear the entire cost of the woTk — is between 600 and 700 acres, more than two-thirds of which is comprised in the Rhodes "and Wilton estates, now being cut Tip into building sections, and one or two other large areas in private hands. What are these large landowners contributing- towards the cost of the undertaking ? Absolutely nothing. They have simply been "holding for a rise," and if a tramway is made they will pocket the added value given by the better facilities of access, leaving tho purchasers of their sections to shaTa with other small owners the heavy cost of the work. Either they lack the public spirit which animates landowners at Ki!brrniei and Miramar, or they think it superfluous to display it when dealing with such an easy-going body ai the Onslow Council. In. a printed, circular pruepa-red by the Mayor, for a copy of which I am indebted to a councillor, the rate required to pay interest, etc., on the loan id stated to be 3|d on the unimproved value, and a further Tate of l£d is to bs struck for paying working expenses, which can only be levied on petition by ratepayers, which they are now being canvassed to sign._ The total rate required is thus 4^d in the pound — equal to 5s 8d on tho annual rental — which I think you will agree, is a heavy charge in addition to the ordinary rates, which now total 2 9-32 d. It means in effect that for every pound a ratepayer now pays, he will, if tho loan proposal is carried, have to pay nearly three pounds. The Mayor gives an interesting comparison of the cost of the proposed tramway and those of Miramar and Karori, as follows : — j

able value of the two former boroughs is far in excess of that of Onslow (South Ward) — in the case of Karori more than double, and in Miramxr about two and a half times — the cost of the Onslow line of a little more than a mile is far heavier, and the burden of the rate in proportion, leaving out of count the extra l£d required. His Worship ia careful to explain that the rale for the MiramaT wo-Tk would have been heavier if the Hataitai Syndicate had not contributed £10,000. His geographr is a little mixed, as Hataitai is in Kilbirnie, not Miramar; but the Crawfords and other landowners paid liberally towards Aliramar. Why did not his Worship emulate the example of his .brother mayors and secure subsidies from the landowners in Wadestown? No mention is made of the Brooklyn line in the circular of the Mayor, but at the recent meeting at Wadestown he stated that it was beine; worked at a, loss, in spite of the fact that tho cars were well patronised, and that the population was more than double thafc of Onslow South Ward, including Goldiesbrae The mention of Goldiesbra* suggests a question. Most of tho residents in this part of the ward will, if the poll is carried, have to pay £10 or £20 a year additional rates far a tramway which they will not use. What, moral difference is there between a footpad robbing a man of £20 and a borough council taking £20 from him under the name of a rate for a pxiblic work from which he does no.t and cannot in the nature of the case, receive any benefit? And is the attitude of the councillors of other wards like that of a Tivol knight of the road, whose benevolent neutrality is . inspired by a hopo of non-interference when he has a similar task in hand himself? In conclusion, I may say that, like most people on the hill, I snould be very glad to see better conveniences, but they nrnst be at a more reasonable cost than this reckless tram scheme. We want a more businesslike body than the Onslow Council, and I would suggest to my felloTr-ratepayers that the first steD towards improvement' is joining the city. — I am, etc., RATEPAYER. Wadestown, 16th October.

Katenble Value. Cost of Intended (unimproved). work. Rate. £ £ Uiramar — 265,421 23,000 lid in £ Karori „ 339,000 21,000 lid in £ 3nslow .. 132,419 28,500 3id in £ Chus it will bo seen that while the rate-