GREATER CHRISTCHURCH.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CVIII, Issue 12999, 15 December 1902, Page 11

GREATER CHRISTCHURCH.

TO THE EDITOR, Sir, —If you Mill allow me the space in your valuable paper 1 M-ill endeavour for tlie benefit of the general public to place before them a few facts. I have aiva.iteel to see if someone with a. more, able pen than mine would take the matter, up and explain the position. . As yet. we have only bad the one side, of the question placed before us. I will first refer to the public meeting held in the Canterbury Hall. I expected to hear a full explanation on both sides in order to have an opportunity to judge, ’but such was hot the easo7 and M-e. had" to be contented with M'hat his Worship the Mayor, .and ,a fen- selected persons chose to inform the audience. Evidently the other side is to be kept dark, as if any discussion had been allowed the thought of which would possibly retard their progress, and. consequently the result was only one side was shown to the public. Sov if you will permit I will endeavour to show our position. As a nutter of fact I believe that the whole matter would have, been settled long before this to the satisfaction of the ratepayers concerned if the Mayor and councilcillars had listened to. reason. From the first it 'was considered by the borough councils outside the city that in the interests of the whole of the ratepayers it would behest to form a board of-works and piece that body in control of the four largo works, 'be., drainage, lighting, water worko and tramways', as it was considered they would bo better managed than they wouljl be by either or all of the borough councils, as they could have allotted an area large enough to enable them to carry* out the functions of the board without consulting other local bodies, as it would be in the event of Greater Christchurch. \ We should then have only, one board' of. works. As it is we have the Drainage Board and we shall soon have a .Tramway Board, and it is fair to assume that wo shall require tiro other boards’, as it is contended that none of these four large works should he in the hands of any borough council. Exception to this was adopted by the City Council, and they absolutely refused to have anything to do with such a. proposal. Is this fair? The St Albans Council delegates have endeavoured; to get the board question considered, but without success. In reference to the tramway question it is pleasing to know that our delegate. Mr T. 11. Davey, mayor of St Albans, stood true to the wishes of the whole Council to make the tramways the property of the people in preference to handing it over to a- private company ns the City Council would have done. Coming to the question of Greater Christchurch, will it be to the interest of the ratepayers of St Albans to throw* in their lot with the city without taking the necessary time to 'consider the whole question in detail?* More time is required as it is found the people are not fully acquainted with the position. It would be unsatisfactory If the outside borough al-. loM'ed this to bo done, as they are in possession of facts and figures. Certainly, wc have had figures and statements placed before us, but it is possible to make figures say a great deal if the other side is not present. All things considered, the rates are sure to be increased. The figures published in Mr WigramV circular indicate a gain to the outside boroughs, and a loss to’the city, but is this only a- catch to ■dupe, the unwary*? St Albans general rate on the unimproved value is 3d in the £. Mr Wigram does not inform the public that there has been a revalution this year in St Albans, and this will change the affairs considerably to the advantage of the district. Th-i general rate for 1803 will be approximately in the >£l. In the face, of this, Greater Christchurch M'ould rate us considerably higher according to their own showing. Coming to the question of drainage, St Albans has obtained very little drainage, but have to pay £2OOO yearly towards interest, the advantages of which are centred in the city. To be correct the St Albans share, of interest should be- about £SOO yearly. It is more, than necessary to be careful before we are plunged into further trouble. I have, paid rates in the city for the last thirty years and St Albans for twenty years, and for two properties of the same rental value I have always found the city rates about £0 per cent higher than St Albans. It seems almost unreasonable to tell the people that the rates are loM’er in the city than they are in the outside boroughs. To my mind the ratepayers of St Albans should support their Council in their demand to have a. full inquiry. If.it can be shown by joining Greater Christchurch that the rates will not be more and greater advantages obtained for the present outlay, well and good. Mr Wigram, in his circular, avoids the- question of .subsidy, but 1 maintain this in important. Christchurch receives at present the maximum of £450, and in the event of Greater Christchurch this amount would be paid, whilst the other three suburbs would lose together subsidies amounting to £835, which, of course, would have to be made up by extra-rates. Tlie question of Representation on the Greater Christchurch Council consists of fourteen members, six for the city, four for Sydenham, and two for Linwood and St Albans respectively. Under a proposal of this kind I ask where would Lin wood and St Albans come in? In conclusion, St Albans is acknowledged to be one of the most progressive boroughs, and the past-year they have, secured ai first-class fire plant and steam roller, which have involved heavy expenditure to the amount of £2550, without an.increase of rates, showing a- successful financial' year for 1901. I am, etc., GEORGE HYDE. Cannon Street, St Alhauf, Dec. 12, ISO2.