TRAMS TO OPOHO

Evening Star, Issue 18050, 18 August 1922, Page 2

TRAMS TO OPOHO

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—ln reply to my letter of 14th inst. Mr 11, P. Harvey twits mo with neglecting to go to the meeting at Opoho. Let me liastcu to inform 3lr Harvey that I am not in the habit of going where I am not invited l . Tho advertisements calling tho meeting asked “residents of Opoho, and also those of Pelichet Bay,” to roll up to the meeting. As I am not a resident of either of these localities, I was not invited. But, independent ot this, according to Mr Harvey’s reasoning, anyone who did not attend that meeting has no standing in discussing the question. The next point Mr Harvey attempts to make is that my expressed opinions are based on more “thinks.” Naturally ono does not care about dogmatising too strongly ou question's which are open to argument. I thought I had expressed myself in very emphatic terms on quite a number of points, but evidently not strongly enougji for Mr Harvey. I will therefore accept his invitation, and proceed to state emphatically—(l) that Mr Harvey’s inference that a person should have attended_ the meeting at Opoho and expressed his opinions there to entitle him to express his opinions elsewhere is unsound reasoning, and on a par with his other illogical statements; (2) that I, as a ratepayer, who will have to bear a share of the cost of the huge blunder of Air Harvey’s proposed tramway (route, if ever it is sanctioned, exercise the right to express ray opinions when and where I please; (3) that a tramway constructed from the Gardens to Opoho would be a wanton waste of the ratepayers’ money; (4) that it would be the biggest blunder in tramway construction which has ever been perpetrated in Dunedin; (5) that any city councillor who supports it does iiot show ordinary business capacity; (6) that such a councillor will 1 stand a poor chance of being elected at (the next municipal elections; (7) that no city councillor or business man who has capital to invest would ever dream of putting it into such a “wild cat” venture; (8) that I am prepared to leave tho selection of tho best rente to a committee of I independent business men, or to tho newlycreated City Development Committee, and abide by its decision. I trust these dogmatic assertions will be strong enough for Mr Harvey; hut if they are not, 1 may oblige him further. Mr Harvey’s next point is that I wish to l carry tho people from Pelichet Bay to "Upoho for nothing. I did not say or infer anything of the kind That would be part of tho penny section, and would be paid for just tho samo as any other part of a section.’ As well might he argue that a person who travelled from St. Andrew street to Frederick street was carried free.

■Mr Harvey has failed to touch the main point: Which is tho better route of the two —that is, which is likely to ho the better-paying proposition for tho ratepayers, who have to stand tho cost? I, along with other ratepayers, am, directly interested in this question, and not “indirectly,” as Mr Harvey says. It is not a question solely for the Opoho residents to defcide. Those who pay for the cost surely have some say in the route to ho chosen. There is nothing elso in your correspondent’s letter which requires replying to, but if I have omitted any point which he wishes mo to reply to, he has only to say tho word and I shall endeavor to oblige. In reference to Mr Thomson’s route—that is, detour at Anzac square and run along Harrow street —I do not think there is any necessity to do this, seeing that wo have already a lino laid down near by in Castle street; but if capable experts, after investigation, decide that this is a better route than tho one I suggested, then. I ■say, by all means take it. I am not dogmatising on tins. I am only out to see that tho ’ratepayers as a whole get the best value for their money.

Circumstances have completely altered “ during the last fifteen or sixteen years,” to quote Mr Harvey, mainly on account of tho very largo playground which will shortly be available at Lake Logan. Let us get an up-to-date report by an independent committee, and I for ono am prepared to abide by its decision. Will Mr Harvey and those who support him do the same?

I am not a resident of Opoho, and therefore do not nso Opoho spectacles to view the position. One does not always get tho best view from the back yard. To get the true perspective it is better to get a wider vision. I am viewing the matter with a large pair of citizen’s magnifying field glasses, even if it is from Dalmoro and Duke street, as Mr Harvey says. One requires these to magnify tho number of, houses which Mr Harvey considers exist (or arc likely to exist) to make his proposition an entertainablc one.—l am, etc., R. Ferguson. August 17.