The Star. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1879.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 3608, 3 November 1879, Page 2

The Star. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1879.

If it is true that the intelligence of a community is to be gauged by the ability of its public representatives, then the ratepayers of Chris tchurch must regard it as a very humiliating circumstance that the members of their (jity CouDcil have not shown themselves equal to the task of dealing satisfactorily with such a very simple matter as the South Belt difficulty. We believe there have been two or three conferences between the members of the two Municipal bodieß interested, and it would appear that the only practical result of eaoh has been to get still further and further away from a settlement. The matter is exceed* ingly simple, and there are abundance of instances of prudent and satisfactory action taken elsewhere under similar oircumstances ; but, we regret to say, the conferences held have simply afforded opportunities for displays of that wretched jealousy and pettifogging small - mmdedness that is the bane of this city. The boundary line between the two municipalities of Christchurch and Sydenham is the building line on the south side of the South Belt, consequently the whole of that thoroughfare is within the city. The result of this is that, whilst the bnrgeeses of Sydenham in cccupation of properties fronting upon the Belt pay rates to their local body, they cannot get even a footpath to their doors, the Corporation not having the power to expend their receipts on roadways outside of their boundaries. On the other hand, as the City Council does not derive a shilling revenue from property south of the Belt, it is not likely it will ever consent to any expenditure for the improvement of the south side of the street. The Municipal Act requires amendment ; the urgent necessity for amendment is admitted ; and the only difficulty is — what shape shall the required amendment take? The first proposal is to bring in a short measure altering the boundary ]>ne to llie uuuUu of cue road, tuereby giving to each municipality equal rights and equal responsibilities regarding the maintenance of the mutual thoroughfare. The second proposal is to amend the first sub-section of section 188 of the Municipal Act, so that the Council of a city may be enabled to recover from the Council of a Borough a reasonable share of the annual cost of maintaining mutual roads in the same manner that the Act now provides power for the recovery of such "reasonable share" from Bocd Boards. These are the only two courses fairly open. Surely it does not require very much intelligence to decide which is most preferable ? In the meantime, whilst Councillors dispute, the ratepayers who have to pay and got nothing in return, are very naturally dissatisfied ; the South Belt remains in a condition disgraceful to the city within whose boundary it lies ; the citizens'- -rates - - are liable for damages arising from any accident that may result from its present dangerous condition ; and the Parliamentary session is rapidly advancing to a close. Even now the preliminary talk of the approach of the prorogation has commenced, and no steps \to secure the •necessary legislation have yet been initiated. Our view we have expressed upon a former occasion, ie, that the boundary should .be altered to the centre of the road. In the case of any mutual property, nothing can be fairer than mutual rights and mutual obligations. W'hat^have the Councillors of Christchurch to advance against the common sense of such a proposition ? The Mayor of this city asserts that, " To ask Christchurch to give up half of the Bolt upon the Sydenham Council paying half the cost of repair, was like asking a man to give up his house on condition that the applicant kept it papered. He would no7er sanction the giving up of one rood of Ohrißtchurch property." Now, in this we have the stupid perversity of the whole position. The proposition is not at all as the Mayor puts it. Whilst the South Belt romains within the city boundaries, the Council are responsible for keeping it wholly in good order and . repair. ' In some parts of the south eide, it is in' a dangerous condition, and there have already been several very narrow escapes from serious accident. The City Council refuse to expend rates in improving the value of the property of the ratepayers 6i Sydenham. The liability to accident continues, and should one unfortunately occur, the city will have to pay financial i compensation to the sufferers. The South Belt, therefore, may much more properly be described as of the nature- of- a wild animal, dangerous to the safety of our friends and neighbours as well as to those who are of no moment to us. This is the true position. The Cbristchurch people are not asked to give up their house, either with or without conditions. The Mayor, assuming an air of great conscious dignity, talked nothing but the most highfalutin rubbish when he said "He would never sanction the fgiving^ up of one rood of < Ohristchurch." property." The South Belt may 'legally belong to the city, but it was designed .as a thoroughfare for the residents upon the South sido just as much as for the

residents ' of • fie North Bide; upon" every ground- of equity and right it is a mutual road, and should — if it does not —belong eqnally to both Municipalities. But whilst the Mayor indignantly repudiates the idea of giving up a rood of " Chnatchurch property," he has no hesitation whatever — in the very same breath — in putting forward a- modest proposal to, extend the boundary of the city to the railway .line. Bia' elastic conscience can Btretoh easily enough to take in a strip of the most valuable land, containing aomo of the finest buildings in Sydenham ; but to give up balf of a street upon which the Counoil will never expend a shilling, and which is a constant Bource of danger — in addition to being an annoyance and disgrace — he regards with a kind of holy horror. We regret to observe that sensible business men like Councillors Taylob and King should for a moment appear to allow their judgment to be led away in such a matter by such stuff as fell from the Mayor. A precisely similar difficulty, but upon a much more extensive scale, existed at one time between Melbourne and the suburban Municipalities with which that city iB now surrounded ; but the Councillors there never thought of assuming the ridiculous attitude of the Councillors of Chrißtchurch. The privilege of making roads where no rateß are paid was felt to be a los3 and not a gain, and a losing property of that kind is not at all a 'desirable acquisition. The boundary between Melbourne and the Municipalities was very promptly altered to the centre of the streets, and amity and mutual goodwill have ever since con* ' tinued. This question will never be settled until the Councillors of Christchurch abandon stupid sentimentality and deal with the subject as men of business and common -sense. Probably during next year, when bur worthy — but somewhat bumptiousMayor has been turned out to grass for a period a better time will set in.