AMALGAMATION

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXVI, Issue 18757, 14 April 1923, Page 5

AMALGAMATION

CASTLECLIFF AND GONVILLE

PROPOSALS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY TOWN BOARDS

The members of the Gonville and Castlccliff Town Boards met last evening at the Masonic Hall, Gonville, in order to discuss the proposed amalgamation of the two boards inti> one borough. Commissioner Pearce (chairman of the Gonville Town Board) occupied the chair. Comrs, Arnold, Marchant, Gilberd, Willis, and Jensen representing Gonville; and Crs. McKenzie (chairman). Body, Connor, Cuthbertson, Beadle, and Rogers, representing the Castlecliff Town Board, were present. Apologies were received from Crs. Eales and Allpress. Cr. McKenzie (chairman of the Castlecliff Town Board) said that the question of amalgamation with Gonville had not been considered in his district, but, in response to the invitation from Gonville, his board had decided to meet and consider the proposals. He thought the time opportune for amalgamation. Castlecliff and Gonville had much in common, and he hoped the discussion would be free from all taint of parochialism. Cr. Pearce said that the position arose from a petition from the Gonville ratepayers. He himself thought that the amalgamation of the town boards and the formation of ons borough was a wise step. Castlecliff and Gonville had much in common—the same town clerk, the same engineer, they used the same plant* and public services, such as waler, drainage, and tramways, were common to both. In technical details, such as population and area, botn town boards fulfilled the neecssary legal requirements. He then quoted figures to show that both in unimproved and in capital valuation, Gon' ville to-day stood higher than Wanganui did 30 years ago, also that Gonville and Castlecliff showed a very much faster rate of improvement in valuation than Wanganui during the same period, and that the future of the combined area showed every prospect of wonderful development.

A letter had been read from the board’s solicitors, Messrs Marshall, Hutton and Izard, setting forth the steps necessary to establish the amalgamation in legal manner. That night’s meeting was the first step. Then each board must move and pass a resolution in favour of amalgamation and a petition should b« presented to the Governor-General if objections were lodged, a commission would be set up, and on a favourable report being made, the whole matter would be taken to a poll of ratepayers. A bare majority vote would then decide the question. Cr. Pearce then moved, and Cr. Gilberd seconded: (1) That this conference of the Gonville and Castlecliff Town Boards recommends to the electors of the respective districts the proposal to constitute a borough of the combined area as being in the interests of the ratepayers generally, and for the more economical admin istration of the district as a whole. (2). That the respective Town Boards take the necessary steps tc promote a petition to the Government for the constitution of a bor ough as recommended. Cr. Rogers considered that amalgamation would be in the interests ot both districts. Unofficially they were already amalgamated, and the actual fact could be brought about by a give-and-take policy on both sides. Castlecliff at the present might have more to gain than Gonville, but he deprecated the parochial viewpoint when there was such a community of interest between the two boards Cr. Gilberd advocated amaigama tion, and expressed the opinion that as a borough greater progress coulc be made than while they remained ai separate bodies. With regard to unexpended loar monies, Cr. Pearce said that each board would spend whatever balances remained (Gonville £20,000, Castlecliff £15,000) in the area for which it was raised. He also pointed out that Castlccliff would require more money spent out of future loans than Gonville, in order to de velop its streets, kerbing, etc. to the same state. He looked at the ques tion in its broadest aspect, and pointed out that as one borough it would enable them to finance better and to work more economically. The question of amalgamation with Wanganui could be considered when the finances of the parent borough were in a sounder condition. Cr. Willis supported the scheme. Both districts, he said, would develop towards one another. They and Wanganui were one community, and amalgamation was a natural process that could only he a benefit to all parties. Cr. Ma reliant 'spoke in favour of amalgamation. He deprecated any remarks that were adverse to the borough of Wanganui, which had come through a very difficult period, in a succe-alui He advocated unity. Cr. Beadle was in favour of the pioposal, although lie had not always been so. Cr. Arnold also supported amalgamation, and hoped it would be a step towards the ultimate union with Wanganui. Crs. Jensen, Botty* Cuthbertson and Connor also spoke in support of tne motion, which was put and carried unanimously.