HAMPSTEAD CHANNELLING POLL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXXVI, Issue 3558, 19 September 1916, Page 4

HAMPSTEAD CHANNELLING POLL.

To the Editor "Qo/ißDiAti."

Sir, —In order to enlighten your-: "Nelson Street", correspondent, let me tell him that-Jie is enth'ely- on the wrong track '(I- would suggest a prohibition order)., I never at any time supported tho proposed expensive, channelling scheme. He must surely be a firsb cousin to ".RipVan Winkle," or he would have, noticed-this if he had i taken the tVoublo to read the meeting reports in your valuable paper. : Let mo; also tell him that the .fact of a commissioner 'being^/appointed as one of a deputation does not necessarily compel him to bo in support of that which' 1 ho has been deputed to ask for.

■\V. J. CUNNINGHAM

To the KwiTOB "Giubdian." Sir ,—ln reply to 'your correspondent "Nelson Street," we wish to point. out that ■; these members have not changed".their opmions, and that the■ present channelling scheme was > promise made to the ratepayers at the time the amalgamation «scheme.' w&s"defeated: '' Nelson Street.'' states that the present loan would mean a total of 2d. in the pound on the capital . value. \V"e would; like to point out to >■ tho ratepayers that the general' rate, and also that with the proposed loan, would be less than 2d in the pound, and with tho increased residences that' will be erected in the- district this would be further ( reduced within a short period. Now, sir, your correspondent states: "It ,is interesting to compare the ■ Greater Ashbjirton scheme witli that of tho present proposal,*' which is intended to channel all the residential part of Hampstead ;* whereas, 'if the amalgamation scheme had boi*n carried, considerably less than one-third of the - district wonJd have been channelled, w^hich the whole of Hampstead would have been rated f0r..,. -This we consider very unfair to the majority of the ratepayers. As regards asphalting .and high-pressure water-supply, vp would like to remind your correspondent that no promise of this was made-..t0 Hampst'^d'.by the P'ormich" Council nt the time the, proposal was dipoi^'^d. ~ /. Tf- TT- BOBTN Tfi'ON. W. THOMPSON.

j> TO THIS K.OITOR. Sir —I tun iii a^iv.omoiil with the judgment ot "iSd^ii iSuvot." It'is undoubtedly t1i»: duty 6l ovocy pro-porty-onuur to turn down the proposal to borrow £7000 for channelling. Had. tho proposal been for water there might bo something to consider. The inevitable dot,tiny of Hampslead is absorption into the Borough. *It.may be delayed by the, - irascible tenacity of permanent members, but. it must .come.' 'Che.lnto proposal was \ badly engineered, and 'doomed 'to 1 failure.

We have a revenue of about £1000^ per annum, which the Borough could adjninihter through existing dopart--incuts and never ied the strain, and it couldgive "us much that we need out of rewn.uo by ji .steady pursuit of oup objective afc a time. Seven thousand pounds will-not channel and give llampstoad footpaths. It' the work is urgent at any* point let them do as Xethi'rhy did—heavily subsidise the Hoard. A loan can only be raised at ;» heavy discmint—at. best, it would ,not £6000, and carry a high rate of interest. --Does llampstead know that • tliore oro miles oF streets ill the . Borough not channelled and -without . asphalt paths ? T heard a good suggestion by a ratepayer— it wps to turn tho whole ho.Ti'd down and let tb* pla*l? go w'ld I'm* a hit. AGAINST THE LOAN. "