BOROUGH EXTENSION.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 6752, 5 February 1892, Page 2

BOROUGH EXTENSION.

[to the bdixob.l

—With regard to borough extension, I am sorry to say that some tf tho borough residents are as much against taking in the suburbs as the suburbs themselves are against coming into the borough, and for the very same reisou that "Suburban” gave in his letter on Wednesday, namely, that the change may affect their pockets, because under any circumstances far more would require to be spent for some time to come than the income derivable would be on the rates collected, showing plainly that the present borough would cot be enriched financially by the amalgamation. Now with regard to increased rates, which is one of their chief objections to joining the borough: I think 1 can prove to “ Suburban’s satisfaction, and without fear of contradiction (if he has the borough water laid on to his house) that he Is paying more for a domestic supply of water only than he would pay, if included in the borough, for the general rate, water rate, and harbour rate, put together. Take an example of what I mean. If he had a house in the suburbs valued at £2O a year rental, and required a water supply for the same, he would have to nay quite £2 10s a year for that supply, whereas if this same house were included in the borough, all tho above mentioned rates would be a little under 2s 6d in the pound, and consequently would be less than £2los on tho £2O rated ; thus showing That all tha ratrs that are now being paid outside tho water supply would be saved. Aifothrr objection of theirs is that the borough will bo going in for a loan to carry out the underground system of drainage, which would involve anotber increase of rates, and thus they would be slated again for very little benefit. I can safely disabuse their minds cn this point for a long time, lam afraid, because the drainage scheme was voted on some ten years ago, when we thought there was some hope of going on with it, with the result that about one-fifth of tho ratepayers voted for it. But what would be tha result now if the ratepayers were asked to vote on it ? I should be quite safe in saying that not more than one-tenth would vote for a loan to carry out the underground drainage at the present time, not because it is not needed, but because of the extra burden that would be put on them while not in a position to bear it. We shall have to content ourselves with a surface drainage for a good many years to come, unless a very great change takes piacs for the better. But I think (hat a small loan for this purpose would well recoup itself by tho labour that would be saved during the year in cleaning out channels, etc., in addition to the clea n lincss that would be secured, which is a boon in itself. I am, etc., A. Fhbebatt.