HAMPSTEAD CHANNELLING POLL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXXVI, Issue 3557, 18 September 1916, Page 4

HAMPSTEAD CHANNELLING POLL.

To tub Editob "Guabdian."

Sir,—l would like through your columns to call tho attention of the Hampsteiul ratepayers to the poll on Wednesday at which they are asked to vote on t,h<> proposal to borrow £7000 for channelling. It seems to mo a. wonderful thing how certain members of the Ha-mpstead Town Board have <-h;u.\oed their opinions since they assLsLed in setting the Greater Ashburton scheme defeated. The present proposal would mean a total rate ot, say, 2d in the £ on the capital value, or', under the Ashburton Borough form of rating, of nearly ?a 8d in the £. Just before the Greater Ashburton scheme was voted on, certain members of the Ha-mpstcad Board—Messrs Robinson, Cunniimham, and Thompson got the credit for it—issued a manifesto to the Hampstoad ratepayers. In this manifesto appears certain statements, and it would be interesting if those pentl.emen would explain same with their present attitude.-. Relating to channel water from Ashburton,, it saidr. "They .(the channels) wbuld only carry through the district (Hampstoad) impure, water laden. wittf infection from all the public conveniences, wash tubs, ■and sinks'of Ashburton." About three months la tor those same three gentlesmen waited as a deputation on the Borough Council and asked for the same "impure" water for Hampstead, and, further, tho board has now.agreed to "buy" this water from tho Borough. . Relating to taxation, the manifesto said- "Why burden yourself with extra taxation at such, a time?"—i.e., during, the war. Now the board—and the war is still going on—wants to more than double your rates. It is interesting to compare the iresent proposal!; with the Greater Ashburton scheme, which the Hampstead residents turned down. Under -the present scheme, the rates will 1>0.., increased 108 pei- cent., as against 50 .per oeut. under the Greater Ashburton proposal, and the former x will give-you channels only, while the latter would have given asphalt footpaths as well as ohannoln Manf Hampstead residents are buyin" water from the Borough at an expense of £2 8s per annum, which in some cases, if not m all, mem an additional -increase of another 100 percent. On the above grounds, Hampstead ratepavors will be very foolish if they do not "'vote out the proposed duu.no! scheme.