TIMARU’S CENTENNIAL MEMORIAL

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLVI, Issue 21359, 31 May 1939, Page 13

TIMARU’S CENTENNIAL MEMORIAL

To the Editor of " The Timaru Herald ” Sir,—At a special meeting, held recently, the Timaru Borough Council decided on erecting, as a Centennial Memorial, a women’s rest room, with creche attached, and Plunket rooms. In the first place, let us examine how this was done. At the meeting, there were three members of the Council absent, and the Mayor and the Deputy-Mayor voted against the proposal, so that the vote cast was four in favour and three against. Thus, on a bare majority of one vote, the Council has committed the ratepayers to a large known sum, to say nothing of the unknown amount, without the ratepayers having any say in the matter. The Council proposes to finance the scheme by a special tax, in excess of one farthing In the pound, for one year, as was done when the clock tower was built a few years ago—but with this difference, that a former Mayor and his council, thought it only right that the ratepayers should have some say, and took a poll on the question, even though the sum involved was only about £2OOO, as against the present scheme costing about four times as much. In the present financial uncertainty, and with the prospect of a heavy increase in our hospital levy, are the ratepayers prepared further to increase the taxation, by an indefinite amount, for something which is thought by many to be a most unsuitable mamorial, and which can be used by only a relatively small section of the community? Whether the proposed memorial is favoured by the majority it is hard to say, and can only be judged by a general vote being taken. Judging from opinions I have heard expressed, I am inclined to think that a very large section is strongly opposed to the suggested form of tjie memorial, and, strangely enough, the most forcible expressions I have heard have been from women. I have waited for some general expression of opinion through the columns of the Press, but, so far, there has been very little. Why is this? Is it because the suggested memorial meets with general approval? I do not think so. Is it due to apathy and a lack of interest? I cannot think that this is true either. What then? Have we reached a state of servility where we meekly submit to anything that is foisted on us without making any protest? Surely not. Or is it that, although there is a strong undercurrent of feeling in the matter, no one has come forward to take the initiative and obtain, per medium of the correspondence columns of the press, a general expression of the opinion of the people? This, I think, is probably the explanation of the apparent (not real) lack of interest shown, and I trust that this letter may be the means of getting from the people, who will have to foot the bill, their real feelings in the matter.

Let us now, for a moment, see what this proposal, if carried out, will mean to the ratepayer. The total sum involved in cash and land is roughly £B7OO, made up as follows: value of land- £3500, Levels County contribution £lOOO, estimated public subcription £350, estimated Government subsidy £lOOO, leaving £2850 to be made up by the Timaru Borough Council. This amount it proposes to collect, from the ratepayers, by means of a special tax. In audition, it is practically a certainty that the rents to be collected from the hire of the rooms will not go far towards paying Interest on the sum expended. On top of that, there will be such items as lighting and firing, caretaker’s wages, repairs and other Incidental expenses which will be a further annual charge on the ratepayers. How much these items are likely to run into we have no means of telling. Once we are committed to it we shall have to meet it each year,

no matter how much it is. I contend that the Timaru Borough Council has no moral right, whatever the legal position may be, to saddle the ratepayers, in these times, with any additional burden—certainly not one involving a sum of the magnitude proposed—unless sanctioned by'a poll of these who will have to find the money. I trust that when the matter next comes before the Council, the Mayor will give us a clear and definite statement on the subject. The ratepayers are entitled to it. If a poll is taken and they vote for it, all well and good —the choice will be theirs and they will have no excuse for complaining when the rates are collected next February. The question of urgency does not arise, as the centennial year is not until 1940. Is it then a question of expediency? It looks rather like it, otherwise why the haste in rushing it through? Surely the occasion was nt least worthy of the consideration of a full council? In the meantime, I do not propose more than to touch on the question as to whether the existing rooms could not be made suitable for the expenditure of say £5OO (about one sixteenth of the amount proposed to be spent), or to touch many otherpoints that could be discussed. In conclusion, if we haven’t sufficient vision to think of some more fitting memorial to mark the occasion, or. if we think that the suggested memorial is a necessity, but are not prepared to pay for it in the ordinary course as a social amenity, then, let us be honest with ourselves and admit that it is a quesL >n of expediency and drop the idea of calling it a memorial to our pioneer settlers, who, although often enough the” had not much else, at least had vision. I am, etc., RATEPAYER. Timaru, May 29.