TEAMS FOR OPOHO

Evening Star, Issue 18052, 21 August 1922, Page 3

TEAMS FOR OPOHO

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —To attempt to reply to your.correspondents of yesterday, who write in antagonism to the Oity Council's decision to give Opoho,a tramway line from the Gardens corner, woulld only 'be the reiteration of arguments already advanced by myself and others. I therefore decline to bo “ drawn ” further. —1 am, etc., H. P. Harvey. : August 18. TO THE EDITOR. Sii', —A sensible letter by G. Davis appears in your issue to-night. I do not agree tliat those who live in a locality that is not going to benefit should keep quiet, because the city ratepayers are vitally interested in tramways. If we do not watoh, penny faros will be lost to us. it would, perhaps, be proper to have an engineer advise us as to a comprehensive scheme for all suburbs. I do not think that Gardens to Opoho would bo in it. A bus connection there would servo quite well; and, as for fares, nothing less than 3d certainly or 4d to Signal Hill. Boayn people pay 3d and 4d. Haulage up hills and braking cars down, and the curves can never be done for pennies. Tho mty has done well for Opoho people in taking its cars within a reasonable distance of a sparsely-settled district. If a tramway (is to be built tho route should be Castle street via Frederick street, Harrow, Forth, and Eden streets to Opoho, and, when required, a branch to Ravcnsbourno at Union street, the reason for the Frederick street turn-off being that the curves would ibe much easier at tho foot of Frederick street, aud would mean a saving in wear and tear, besides serving the new Pehchet Bay station. A very payable project is easily seen in the proposal to run a line up Pitt street to Maori Hill, where trafhc on the electric lino was disorganised this week.—l am, etc., Observer. August 18. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Misrepresentation and misstatements by “No Gamouliage” compel me to write again. Ho is wrong when he says that it is the duty of the engineer to select routes. This is dona by the people or their representatives. An engineer may report on the practicability of a route, or on any other relevant matter, but tho final selection is not left with him. Nor is it a question of “civil engineering and laying down of rails.’’ 1 do not suppose “No Camouflage” would allow an aremteot to select the site his house is to be built on, nor would he allow him to dictate as to the amount of money which is to bo spent on the house and the return which this expenditure is likely to give. I never claimed to speak “ for the general body of ratepayers.” I gave my own personal opinion, without consulting anybody; Ibut I believe, from the number of people who have spoken to me about tho matter, that the general body of ratepayers who know the proposed roiue from tho Gardens are in agreement with my views that the proposal as absurd, la fact, I am certain they are; and this includes a large numlbor of the Opoho people. I never advocated “ going up the cemetery road.” This would indeed be going through as “ dead ” country as the Gardens route, and just about as sensible. For “No Camouflage's ”■ information, 1 have no property at Opoho, nor anywhere else, for that matter. My sole obpect Is to try to see tliat tho ratepayers are not saddled with the expense of such a huge blunder as constructing a line of tramway from the Gardens to Opoho.—l am, etc., E. Ferguson. August 19. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Tho letter of your correspondent, “No Camouflage” in last night’s Issue is such excellent fooling that it is-almost a pity to depreciate it in any way. I have only one little “grouch” against “No Camouflage.” I shall not even remonstrate with him for endowing me, by a scrape o’ tho pen, with the ownership of “a large amount of property,” and thus stimulating my creditors to an embarrassing activity. Nor shall I complain of the ruthlossness with which ho credits me with claiming to ,be an authority on civii engineering—an inference from my letter not justifiable bv even the wildest stretch of imagination. ‘But I will ask my humorous friend if it is not straining even the wag’s license when, after I had been careful to write that “ I would not presume to speak for others in tho district,” “No Camouflage ” quite unashamedly states: “Mr W. R. Sinclair takes it on himself to speak for the ratepayers in his district.” You see, “No Camouflage,” some simple person may place some i alue on vour statements. —I am, etc., “ W. R. Sinclair. August 19. TO THE EDITOR, Sir,—A public meeting is advertised in the ‘ Star f for to-night in , the Albany Street School Hall to fully ventilate the question of which is the best route for the Opoho extension to take, and so prevent another blunder on the part of our city councillors. I agree in toto with the Harrow street, Eden street route, as so many others do, and must do, if they study w T ith a single eye the interests of the city. This route will serve a very largo section of the city which is thickly populated, and whicli will be much greater when, in the near future, the land on whicli the railway is now laid will be added to it. A tram line is in George street, and one in Castle street; and if one b laid in Harrow street and Eden street to the cemetery and Opoho, this part of the city will be fairly equally divided and served by trams, which is, in these days of no-dclivery of tho necessaries of life, absolutely essential. It is bad enough to have to “ swag ” these parcels even in tho trams. It is an absolute disgrace to have to do it on “Shanks’s pony” or in “Walker’s bus.” And our councillors should realise to the full that this eternal, infernal, disgraceful humping of the household “ swagbrings in to them enormous returns in the shape of car fares. Then, again, this route will serve the Pelichet Bay people, the new Logan Park sports ground (including the new University buildings), tho Northern Cemetery, and the Opoho sports ground. Also, it will attract many fares from citizens and visitors, who will, for certain, often take a joy ride for recreation. The extension from the Gardens has none of these recommendations, and it will not open up nor improve any new district, there being a tram on that route (except for tho breakneck hill) already. Anyway, let the attendance this evening be a full one, and then let a vote bo taken on this question of route, bearing in mind only the best interests of tho city as a whole. As a big ratepayer for many years past I most strongly object to a continuation of mistakes which not only increase our rates but make ns a laugliingstock for outsiders. I hope the various speakers to-night will go into the full details m a methodical manner, and aim to give everyone a fair and square deal.—l am, etc., For the Common Good. P.S.—The land to he added to the Harrow-Eden streets route by the removal of the railway will be 100 acres, all available for residences.—F.T.C.G. August 21-