The Timaru Herald. THURSDAY,MARCH, 1888.

Timaru Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 4185, 8 March 1888, Page 2

The Timaru Herald. THURSDAY,MARCH, 1888.

On the 14th of last month, Councillor Plnnte moved, m accordance with notice, "That the borough solicitor be iu> structcd to draw up a by-law, or bylaws, for the tmaking of footways and channelling, m accordance with clauses 255 to 257 of "The Municipal Corporations Act, 1886 "; that tho percentage of. cost to be charged against tho owner or occupier of the property adjoining shall bo 50 per cent, ns per Bcbedule ; that n draft copy shall bo submitted to a special meoting of tho Works Committee, who shall draw up a schedule of tho cost of asphalting (1) with wood kerb nnd asphalt channel, (2) with stone kerb and concreto channel, (3) with concrete kerb and channel (full or part width of footway." After some discussion the motion was put and carried. A special meeting of tho Borough Council was held on Tuesday night for the purposo of dealing with Mr Plante's proposed by-law. The Works Committee had recommended that the owner or occupier of land should pay Is 7d per foot towards tho coat, and hnd reported against eub-clauso (1) and (2), specifying the materials to be used m tho construction of the footpaths nnd kerbing and channelling. Thejrccommondation therefore was that, m accordance with sub-clauso (3) tho footpaths should be asphnlted, and, that the korbiug and channelling should be of concrete. Councillor Plantc moved that tho recommendations bo agreed to, and thereupon a lengthy discussion ensued, which terminated m the rejection of tho motion. It is generally agreed that the footpaths of the borough aro m a. very bad atate, und tho fact that it ia so is uouiLuunly remarked on by atrauguiß

visiting Timaru. The town is worse provided m the matter of footpaths than any other town of like standing m New Zealand that we are acquainted with. We therefore thoroughly sympathise with those councillors wko are endeavouring to bring about a better state of tilings. But nevertheless we do not agree with the course proposed by Mr Plante m speaking to his motion. The recommendation as to the materials was, we dare say, a wise one. Asphalted footpaths with cotocrete kerbing and channelling are very durable, and are likely to be the cheapest m the long run. That, however, is not the point on which we desire to dwell. ll r Plante, and indeed the members generally, assumed that, if the by-law were adopted, the council would proceed to make the entire width of the footpath opposite such blocks or portions of streets as might be agreed upon, and that the individual owners or occupiers of land wonld at once be called upon to contribute their quota of the cost as determined by the by-law. The sections of the Act of 1886, bearing on the subject are as follows : — 255. The council may lay out footways on one or both Hides of tho streets, and may construct tho same, of such dimensions and of such materials and m such manner m all respects as it thinks fit. 251 i. Tho cost of so constructing 1 all such footways or channels, or such proportion of such cost as tho council from time to time directs, not exceeding one half of the whole, shall be a chargo upon the owners or occupiers of tho lands and buildings fronting on such footways or channels. (1.) Snch cost and charge may bo fixed by the council either before or after the construction of such footway or channel by any by-law m that behalf, according to the description, dimensions, and materials of tho footway or channel. (2.) Tho charge upon each owner or occnpior of such lands or buildings shall be m proportion to the longth of the footway or channel adjoining such lauds or buildings. (3.) Such charge shall bo deemed to bo, and may bo recovered as, a separate rate. (■I.) Any ocauyicr paying any such charge may deduct tho same from any rent payable to, or may otherwiso recover tho same from, the owuor of tho lands or buildings m respect of which he has paid tho same. 257. Upon tho petition of not less than three-fifths of tho ratepayers m respect of the lauds and buildings fronting any street, or any ono side of a street, throughout any comploto section of its longth, tho council may construct tho channels of such street or side thereof adjoining the footway, m concrete or other durable material, and m snch manner as it thinks fit, and tho half cost of anch channelling shall bo apportioned amongst the owners and occupiers aforesaid, m tho same manner as m tho case of footways. But the proposed course is not the only one which could be pursued, and is not the one usually adopted by municipal authorities. In tho cities and boroughs with, which we are acquainted, the practice is for the council to asphalt and kerb the outer portion of the footway (say three or four feet) and to leave the inner portion to be done and paid for at any subsequent time when the individual owners make application. The obvious advantage of the plan is that, whilst the general public is provided with a good continuous pavement, amply wide enough except m crowded thoroughfares, the occupier or owner of land abutting on the street is not called on for his contribution as an individual until it suits his purpose to have the work completed the full width of the side walk. It is found m practice that, as population increases nnd business places are built more thickly, the owners of the land come forward of their own accord, and for the sake of their own pockets get the inner half done, as the finished sidewalkgives 1 a better appearance to their premises and thus attracts custom. If after a Btreet is built up, an obstinate or shortsighted owner lets things be ac they are and is content with half of a pavement, it is of very little consequence. We cannot understand why the Borough Council does not adopt this plan, instead of making arrangements for the completion at once of the whole width of such lengths of sidewalk as arc undertaken. It is easy to sco thai numerous cases of very great hardship might arise (unquestionably they would arise) under the system which would be brought into force if Mr Plante's ideas were allowed to have sway. And it must be remembered that under that system the Borough Council wonld not be able to construct one yard more iD length of footpath than under the system which wo have ventured to recommend. The proportion of cost paid or to be paid by tho owner or occupier would m every instance have to be expended opposite his door and nowhere else ; and for every yard of progress the council would have to pay its proportion just as though only the outer lino was being constructed. This is no time to force the townspeople into an unnecessary and burdensome expenditure. An outcry is made about ratCß, and here is a proposal which would practically impose an additional heavy rate without, m tho majority of enses, any corresponding advantage being gained. We understand that Mv Plante intends to give notice of motion to bring on the subject of the by-law again. We cannot wish him success, and would greatly prefer seeing a motion carried for constructing the outer half of the footpaths as rapidly a8 the funds from time to time at the disposal of the council would allow.