THE £3000 LOAN.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume 2, Issue 195, 31 May 1878, Page 2

THE £3000 LOAN.

To- the Editor of tiie Mail.

Sir, —Referring to your leader and my letter of the 24th inst., I do not so clearly see that your, argument "cuts-the ground from under my feet." I have read tbe Municipal Corporations Act pretty closely, and am as far as ever from being convinced as to the legality of the borrowing scheme, but as it would take up too much of your space and my time to go into an argument on all the clauses of the Act, and as you further say that yon hope the opponents of the scheme " will 'fight the question out on the...broad ground of its expediency or otherwise," I will, with your permission, content myself with having called attention to my view of its legality, and have a few words as to its expediency.

I candidly admit that I am so thoroughly qpposed to it that I cannot see a single redeeming feature in it, and shall be glad to be shown by any. citizen where the expediency comes in. for spending £200 each on bridges, when they can be done to serve our purpose equally well for £100 each; or of cutting up the whole of the main thoroughfare, and spending £690 on it, when £150 will make it serve-our purpose for a long .time-"to come.;. But how putting 15 yards of broken metal to the chain on an already hard bottomed road will make it better for either pedestrians or equestrians, I am at a loss to conceive. I have a very vivid, though unpleasant, recollection of trying to get along Bruce's Terrace after it had been newly shingled with 15 yards of gravel to the chain, and that, I remember, was put on a soft bottom. To be sure, the 2_y " ring " through which the metal was passed must have been an elastic one, but the recollection gives me a very good idea of what our main thoroughfare would be for a considerable time after the metalling, was.completed. But even potting that oh one side, the estimate, if-I have the figures correctly, is not correct—7s metalling at 15 yards per chain, at-9s per yard, comes to £486 ss, not £600.; The question of forming Balgiierie and Muter streets is'('not of more importance than the forming of Shark alley, and the laying do\yn d'rgiin pipes to drain'the section, in Balguerie-stj simply because there happens to" be a ditch already cut under where the footpatt/should be is open to grave objection, and any system of drainage should be on some organised and approved plan, and each part that is done should be a portion of the whole plan, and the prpperjie.s specially benefited ought to pay a speciaj rats for the benefit conferred. If anything ia to be done there, fill up the ditch and make the side channel. If pipes are to be laid." lay them in such a . position-that you will not need to take tip .the footpaths ,to execute.: any repairs that. may be required. . As to re-grading and* forming J6llie-strept_and Aylmer's Valley road",'according to the plans already paid for," it would be more absurd than'any of 'the foregoing, and I am aHre the inhabitants near Farr's bridge would object to having the road raised two or three feet in front of their properties; and £300 spent on that would be worse, than, wasted. Take a foot or two of-.'Lardner's corner, if you will, but do not bury "the other properties. It would be a deal'hiore sensible to spend a few pounds on the lane running parallel with Jollie-street through Mr Aylmer's property, which is being rapidly improved and built:upon, and the inhabitants in which lane, together with those in Shark-alley, have a fair claim to their share of any money there is to be allocated.

I have now to say a few words about the baths. That there is a necessity for them is evinced by "the continual outcry from visitors during the- summer months ; but I think the fairest way to build them would be for the Council to subsidise an amount, to be collected 'amongst the tradespeople of the town who are benefited most largely by the influx of visitors. Having thus stated my views on the various works proposed, I should like to say a few words on the financial aspect of the question. The various estiuiates Are: Bridges, £800 ") * cnlverts, £24; main street, £690 ; Balguerie and Muter streets, £401 ; Jollie-street and Aylmer's valley, £300 : engineering and advertising; j£j,oO; baths, £250; , contingenpies, £P7O ; interest and sinking fund,". . ,£210; raising the loan, £GO. Total, £3005. That is five over the amount proposed" to be raised. I suppose that is _.n error in the proposer's figures only, but I contend that the cost of raising the loan will be very much above the amount -stated. And I doubt very much if the debentures will sell at par, or that so small an amount can be got at 6 per cent. I think the "proposers have arrived at two: hasty a diciaion on this point and taken too favorable a view of the terms on which they are to get their money. I am afraid I shall be trespassing too" much on your space with this letter, but I cannot conclude without putting a question or two to the supporters of the scheme. If these works are completed, as now proposed, and the rates pledged to* pay the interest on the cost for 50 years will they not require • something to be expended on them for that time ? If they do need repairs and anything else requires to *be done, about the town, how is it to be done without a special rate ? Will not the rate pledged for the special purpo.e, of providing the interest and sinking fund on the loan become at one* a

Bpecial rate ? And if so, _wiU it be subsidised by the General Government ? And if not so subsidised, having no other rates, how are we to obtain the subsidy? I am led to ask these questions because the chief reason assigned for raising the loan is to prevent the necessity for the imposition of a special rate, whereas I contend it is the very way to create the necessity for one and at once. Yours, &c. CIVIS.