PROPOSED RICCARTON BOROUGH.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXXIII, Issue 16061, 16 October 1912, Page 11

PROPOSED RICCARTON BOROUGH.

f'-'A meeting of those- opposed to tlio [borough proposal was held at lliccartou lon Monday evening, Mr G. Harris prcfciding. i _ The following report of the proceedings has been forwarded:— It was reported that tho canvass had been practically finished and showed a substantial majority against' the proposal. The whole of the funds required had been subscribed and a further canvass for this purpose was unnecessary. It was decided to forward another circular to ratepayers, giving ascertained facts and figures as to tho past, present and future expense of the upkeep and maintenance of the picposed borough area. Mr E. Broadway asked if it wcro not a fact that if a borough wore formed they could restrict tho driving of stock along the West Belt. Tho chairman said the Waimairi County had already passed a by-law preventing the driving of stock along tho West Belt, and if any ratepayer saw it IxMng done end gave information to the police, tho police would have to take action. Mr J. W. Wright eaid that now all ■tock had to be taken by the new back road, near the bacon factory, and had this road been opened up some time ago,'and the driving of stuck restricted to it, the present agitation would not have taken place. Mr It. Allen said that during ins late trip to tho Old Country he had Been stock driven. along and by auction in tho open thoroughfare. The leaders of the movement for a borough were making a bugbear of the saleyards, and must have somo ulterior motive in view.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir.—Tour correspondent in this morning's " Times "" says that under the Counties Act money raised in 'i district has to bo spent in the district. It appears then that tho other ridings or districts have all their rates expended in their own districts, and Kiccal'ton after all must be maintaining the pet bogey of the opposition. But your correspondent must" be reminded that £6OO or more of money raised by taxes on Ricearton propertv is buried in tho Papanui whito elephant without tho consent of the ratepayers Now, they cannot have it both ways. They have .been arguing that these roads, i.e.,

■West Belt, part South Belt, part Lincoln Road and part North Belt, have boon maintained out of the rates from the ridings constituting the Waimairi County, so that Papanui, North Avon, Belfast, etc., which never touch these roads, have to contribute a share for their keep. I contend, that being so, Iticcarton has to contribute towards the upkeep of all the n;ain thoroughfares throughout the sparsely-populated districts of the county, such as Marshland Road and the- Main North Road out to C'haneys, and anyone who has travelled much on the North Road knows that the cost of upkeep is second only to one in Canterbury, and there is four miles of these roads, besido other thoroughfares under the control of the Waimairi Council, and the land adjoining is rated less for 20 acres than most of the Riccarton residents arc for their residential improved quarteracres. Stop the driving of stock and the West Belt would cost no more to maintain than that part of the North Belt from Carlton Bridge to the I'endalton Bridge, and to my own knowledge this has had very little done to it for years, and it is one of tho best streets in Cliristchurch. so that our contributions to the other roads will bo more than sufficient even if other local bodies fail to undertake their responsibility. But no honourable local body of men would refuse if they were convinced they morally had a right to contribute. No one could expect them to rush after the Waimairi Council with an offer, because the county is too large for councillors to properly attend to the best interests of the ratepayers. —I am, etc.. •T. ARMSTRONG. TO TUB EDITOE. Sir, —Ts it not a fact that the Riccarton Ridi'ng pays for the upkeep of the Park roads? If not, where is the money spent? Tho borough will have to pay a large proportion toward the cost, still it will be relieved of some of tho burden, so we will gain instead of lose bv forming a borough.—l am, etc., ' G.J.C: TO ID EDITOR. Sir, —I have carefully studied all the letters you have published anent the above, and am still at a loss to understand what benefit we are likely to derive by the adoption of the scheme. I admire the caution displayed by " Ratepayer " in deciding that it will not enhance the value of his small section by encumbering it with the upkeep of the Park roads, the cost of which, as ho aptly points out, will be nn annually recurring charge on his property for all time, and therefore, I say, must depreciate the value of some from a selling point of view. One of your correspondents. " Working Man," devotes nearly the whole of his effusion to the question of the removal of tho saleyards. This in fact is the main roa-F-on advanced by those who are in favour of the borough for the adoption cf their proposals. . There is rjr> doubt that the saleyards must, lie removed in the near future—borough or no borough, and tho County Council has full powers to frame bylaws with- such restrictions for driving stock that will make the same absolutely prohibitive within the area affected.

This being the case it seems very absurd to my mind that we should think it necessary to bring into being another local body simply to deal with this matter, the remedy for which of course is to elect a County_ Council which will exercise its powers in this direction. With reference to the letter signed bv Messrs J. Mawson Stewart and C. M. Hervev for the Borough Committee I really cannot see any argument in it calling for a reply. I have not seen the circular referred to issued bv

the "handful of opponents to the proposed borough," neither do 1 remember having seen any notice calling the ratepayers together to discuss this matter when tho scheme was first mooted, and when, I presume, the Borough Committee was formed. I therefore have formed my opinion without bias from cither side. From previous experience, however, and dearlv bought, too, I may say, I am strongly of opinion that we should be making a very serious mistake, not once but for all time, if we adopt the proposal.—l am, etc., SMALL SECTION. TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—l would not again trespass on vour space only for the fact that your correspondent, Mr R. Hannah, refers to mo in his letter in your issue. I would have willingly signed my name to Mr Hcrvey's letter, only I thought one signature was quite sufficient, and I am not specially looking for " limelight:" Tho Park road 3 matter has been fully explained, and I do not intend to again go into details, other than to say that the Commissioners in their report (quite properly in my opinion) made a suggestion that the new borough should pay a portion towards the up-keop of these roads. Why, the properties of a number of our ratepayers face on to tho West Belt, and of course we should pay something towsrd this, but it is ridiculous for the opposition to try and convince ratepayers that they will have anything to pay toward the cost of the road round the Park, to the Carlton Bridge, for instance. Notwithstanding all the misstatements of the opposition in my opinion), th<s borough proposal will ' br> carried by a substantial majority, because, as one of the oldest ratepayers in the district remarked. "I am supporting the borough proposal and I know it is a good proposal, but even if I did not think this. I would be prepared to give it a trial because, in my oninion, anything is better than tho Waimairi Council."— I am .etc.. _ J. MAWSON STEWART. TO THE EPnon. Sir } —Having been out of town for the past ten days, a report published in your issuo of October 7 or tho enthusiastic and representative meeting of ratepayers opposed to the above proposal only came under my notice this morning. Upon making inquiries I find that this '" very enthusiastic and representative meeting of ratepayers" was attended by about seven persons, some of whom are not ratepayers, and all of whom are interested, directly or indirectly, in tho Canterbury S"aloyards Company. The chairman at that meeting stated that tho borough, if formed, would have no greater power with regard to the driving of stock to the saleyards, than tho Waimairi County Council has at the present time. Now, the chairman (who is a solicitor) should have known that this statement was incorrect. The Municipal Corporation Act, 190 S, Seotion bV*, clause N, confers the power on a borough council to prescribo the route by which loose cattle, horses, sheep, pig 3 and other animals may be driven along the streets within a borough, and in prescribing a route by which stock can be driven the bbrough council can prohibit stock being drivon through other streets, or places than those named in tho spccifie,d route, or can prohibit altogether the driving of stock within the borough. The powers of the county council, on the other hand, aro much more circumscribed. In tho case of roads within three miles from the oncer boundary of a, county the countv-eouncil may fix the time during which' looso cattle,, etc., can be driven through such roads. This is a power to regulate, and such a power does not authorise prohibition. No road can be completely closed _ by fi county council against the driving or stock, but a borjugh council lias full power to do so. This is the opinion of one of our leading solicitors, with wide experieneo in municipal and county council matters, and who, in fact, is at present acting 1 as solicitor to a countv council. The chairman of tho meeting referred to also stated that one of the grounds put forward by the petitioners for tho borough was that they were going to introduce a proper system of drainage for the district. The promoters of the borough scheme have never mentioned tho question of drainage at all, as thev know that this rests absolutely with the Drainage Board. At the same time, I think a borough council would influence tho Drainage Board more than the Waimairi County Council has done in tho past, and who. apparently, excel at doing nothing. In any case, no drainage matters can be undertaken without first having a poll of the ratepayers. The chairman's remarks also in reference to Hagley Park and the roads surrounding and through t.ic rark, are' entirely misleading, as Hagley Park though possiblv within too boundaries of the Waimairi county, they have no jurisdiction oyer it whatever, and have really nothing more to do with it than the Paparoa or Heathcote County Councils. They are in the same position as any other public body, namelv. can have a representative on the Domain Board by. paying a contribution of £SO. . In reference to the maintenance of the roads referred to by the chairman at this meeting, most roads mentioned are boundary roads, which every borough has to contribute its share to maintain. The road from Riccarton : Hotel to the Hospita Corner is at present maintained jwntly bvlmrjhr,stchurch Citv Council and the Wnmwir, Countv Council. and ,f " • ' ro P°-™d S s carried a *W™£™ ?" be set up to allocate tho proportion each body interested. ™™P: £h"stcnrrcli Citv Council. Waimairi County ward the unkeeo of-tnew roacls The amount paid last k? «* maintenance cf these ioads by the Waimairi County Council was less than

£l5O. so that the proportion the proposed borough will have to contribute toward these roads will not be very ruinous, in any case. I think this disposes of the opposition's so-called objections.—l am, etc., J. REYNOLDS, Chairman Riccarton Borough Committee.