MOTOR PARKING IN FRONT OF SHOPS

Hutt News, Volume 1, Issue 3, 6 May 1927, Page 4

MOTOR PARKING IN FRONT OF SHOPS

(To the Editor)

Sir, —Please allow me a few lines to reply to your correspondents re my previous letter on the above subject. When I pointed out the abuse to which motor parking had grown in our main streets, I little thought that I should bring the proverbial "hornet's nest" about my ears. But, sir, there is no sting in their tails, because "73-355" (are these figures of speech?) and your other correspondents practically agree with all I said on the matter—we only disagreed as to details! "73-355" waxes wrath at "my impertinence, want of logic and foresight (inter-alia) etc." (Your correspondent has yet to learn that "abuse is not argument," and when you have "no case" bluff the other fellow—and, sir, I call his bluff.) I reply to him "seriatim." He says "(a) . . . The volume of local purchases would decrease as the ladies, who do most of the shopping, are not physically capable of carrying babies and large parcels of goods from shop to shop and ultimately down to the parking area." What a vivid picture he draws, sir, arms full of babies, — and not physically capable! Ye gods, just fancy "ray lady" alighting from her automobile with arms full of babies! No x sir, it isn't done in 1927! It is "my lady" of the humble pushcart, with little ones at her skirt tails, in fear of her life at the speed-hogs, that is my chief concern. Your correspondent "73-355" must be sadly ignorant of what is happening the world over in regard to vital statitstics. In the latest number of the "New York Automobile" to hand let us hear what the greatest compiler of vital statistics has to say on the question.' Sir Julius Gobel (in commenting on the vital statistics of the world as far as he can gather) says: "We must not close our eyes to the fact— and it is a really sad fact—that in one short decade the birth-rate has dropped practically 9.3 per 1000 births and the death-rate has increased 5.9 per 1000 deaths—due principally to the advent of motor-propelled machines! So much for your correspondent's arms full of babies." (b) "A motorist will not leave a valuable car, etc."—valuable to whom?—only to the owner of the car, and everyone is in duty bound to look after his. or her own valuables. "73-355" would not deposit hi» bank-notes, cheques,, jewellery, etc., in the roadway, go away,, and expect to find them there on his return. Private enterprise has erected banks, strong-rooms, etc., for the safeguarding of these, and if private enterprise will not come to the aid of the motorist in this respect, then motorists will* have to supply that need and erect buildings to store their valuables. At any rate the time has come when they will no longer be tolerated in our main streets. Then your correspondent, in his bland and child-like manner.goes on to ask: "Is the Lower Hutt Business Men's Association prepared to impose a levy on its members to pay for the establishment of a conveniently situated and well-lighted parking area under the supervision of a caretaker, etc. 1 ¥ To that question I reply, "search me— not being the Lower Hutt Business Men's Association, I dunno!" But, sir, after being heavily taxed to provide "73-355" and others with the finest roads the world can produce, he has the colossal impudence to ask that he be now provided with a "conveniently situated, well-lighted parking area in charge of a caretaker—possibly with a fill-up, clean-up, oil-up, hair-cut and shave thrown in." What modesty! Evidently your correspondent thinks his next query is a poser for me. He says: "I ask your correspondent 'if the existing by-law were enforced and prohibition observed, etc'" To this I reply: In the very near future there is not going to be any "if" in this matter the motorparker in front of shops in the main street is going to get a reasonable time limit, and then he will be moved on. There is no greater certainty than that, number "73-355." His further statements are totally irrelevant. He charges the business men themselves with being chief offenders^ to

which I reply that that is contrary to fact, and I challenge your correspondent to give one specific instance to Drove his charge. His next sentence is a "pearl among pearls": "In spite of the 'top' prices shop keepers pay for buildings (which by the way in most cases are not one-sixth of the overhead expenses borne by their city competitors) they have been able to enrich shareholders in foreign automobile manufactories' instead of reducing the price of their wares to the local consumer." If this is a cheap gibe at myself, let me inform "73-355" that I drive an all-British "Standard" car, and am proud of the fact. But is "73-355" game to publish the name and country of origin of his car ?

"Car-Parker's" long and rambling letter I should pass by, were it not for one remark that he makes —and I consider it a most unfair remark. He says: "If motorists were prevented from parking more than five or ten minfUjtes, how much business could they transact in that time, when some of the shopkeepers take that long to serve one article?" Let me inform " Pa-Carker " that shop assistants in the Hutt are noted for their celerity in dealing with customers. Let "PaCarker" leave his name and address at the "Hutt News" office, and I will gladly undertake to show him 20 shops where he can spend his £2 in much less time than ten minutes. I should like to see other shopkeepers take this matter up in the interests of their staffs.

"Indignant" is more "sporting" than the two other correspondents— inasmuch as he is prepared to pay for the guarding of his car—the others want it for nothing. He misquotes me somewhat about the old lady. I never mentioned "old lady" in my letter—so shall leave him still "indignant."—l am, etc.,

"MAIN STREET."