GREATER WELLINGTON SCHEME

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1440, 5 October 1899, Page 41

GREATER WELLINGTON SCHEME

THE ISLAND BAY MEETING. At a meeting held in the Island Bay Presbyterian Church on Saturday evening residents of that distiict were afforded an opportunity of discussing the Greater Wellington scheme. Mr George Webb, Mayor of the borough of Melrose, occupied the chair. Mr W. Brunskill moved—" That thi?, meeting of the burgesses of the Island Bay ward of the Borough of Melrose considers the Bill now before Parliament giving power to absorb the borough into the city of Wellington an act of injustice to the people rf Melrose, and calls upon all burgesses 4k> sign the petition now being circulated for the purpose of preventing the passing of the Bill by the Legislature.' Mr Brunskill said thai although one or two speakers had advocated the proposal at the Mitchelltown meeting no had been advanced in favour of the proposal. He said the city streets would not compare with those of the suburban boroughs, and drew a comparison of the expenditure on the city and the suburban streets. Of the total revenue the city had spent only 17! per cent, on the maintenance of the streets, while the Melrose borough had spent 63 per cent. Out of rates raised for street maintenance the city had available only 67-J per cent., while the Melrose borough had available 94 per cent. This went, he said, to prove that the administrative expenses of the city were greater than those of the borough of Melrose. He spoke on the tramways question and characterised the system as being obsolete. Councillor F. R. Foster seconded the motion. Mr W. Hamlin said Island Bay bur gesses seemed unanimous in rejection of the proposal. He was not in favour of the proposed scheme. Mr H. P. Tuckev thought that if Melrose were merged into the city there was a probability thab the tramways would be carried on to Island Bay, and was of opinion that owing to the congested state of the city it was necessary that the boundaries of the city should be extended. Mr C. C. Crump was not in favour of the oroposal. He thought the motto of the borough should be progress, and ho was in favour of the suburban council borrowing for reproductive works. In reply to a question by Mr Nico) regarding a, wate- supply from the city SU r. n ]y. ii was pointed out that certain parts of the city could not be supplied at present. Mr R. Keene was not in favour of the proposal, and said that if Melrose merged into the city the rates would be increased. Burgesses could get benefits from the borough of Melrose equally as well as from the City Council. After further discussion, the motion was carried unanimously.