GREATER CHRISTCHURCH.
. MEETING AT SYDENHAM. A meeting was held in tTIe. Druids' Hall, Sydenham, last night, to consider the question of amalgamating with, the oity. The meeting was ealiied for those opposed to the proposal, but as the evening proceeded it ."became apparent that all present too not in opposition to amalgamation. The hall was almost filled, about a hundred and fifty being present, including a number of ladies. Cγ. J> Forrester, who was voted to the dhair, said that the meeting had been eal.cd by a number of ratepayers to consider the question of amalgamation with Christ-church. A great number had thought it would bs unwise that the poll should take placa without having a meeting to fully discuss tihe mart/ter. No arrangement had been made for speakers, and the meeting had matters in its own ha-nds. Or. Jones eaid, as a very old resident of the borough, lie had been one of those who had worked in connection with the petition asking Parliament to ■form the borough, and Jμ could not let the opportunity pass without «rftering his protest against amalgamation. It wouf.d be a mietake for tie borough to amalgamate- (Applause.) Sydenham had everything to lose and nothing to gain. It had not been chowo in one single direction bow Sydenham would gain. The borough would certainly bee ite identity, and would j£so lose very heavy in its reserves, which under the scheme would be pooled. This vras rather unfair, as Sydenham had worked very hard in ordtir to get endowments, and ttase were, in excess of those in the city; the -other boroughs had 'handly any. reserves. As to rates, the speaker contended that there woaW be extra cost -of management, in connection with the larger areas. This ■was the experience of every large city in the old world. Reference had been made to Birmingham, but the rat«s pad in that «tv amounted to 7s in the £ on the anrual value; these were not the highest rates paid in £ngli»h cities. It therefore behaved t&ssm to be. extremely careful. It was contended in favour of amalgamation that they wooH be atoie to go ia for certain
like to ask—Where is this money to be spent? Is tvydenham going to get anything like its fair shore? They did not know. In tibia respect to join Ciudstchurch would we. a leap in the dark, and they did not know wiiat was an <fahe other side of the fence. Hβ had only heard of two matters in comneotaon with which tlie city proposed to spend money—the purchase of Canterbury 'Hail and! the widening of Colombo sttreob in the vioinity of the Bank of New Zealand—both very desirable objects, but he didi not I&ii'ok they, would improve or bemttit Sydenham. Witll regard to larger works,. such as. the Waimakariri ediem»; ho considered the area over which the liability ekould be spread should be much larger lihan taat of Greater Chri*tohurch. Such an area -ehould be as large as that of tihe tramways district; indeed, it should extend from Sialf-way up tbe Port HilLs right away to Belfast, taking in Scunner and New Brighton. As another argument agaicsb amalgamattio.il!, tihe speaker referred to the increase in the city rates from the year 1901 to the present, which, lie said, amounted to over £6000; in addition an extra tax in ooavnectAan with the nightsoil had been imposed, which amounted ito about £1500. Tibis made a total of cloae on. £8000. In Sydenham, during the same period, the rates had been increased by £600 odd. This showed that under amalgamation the rates in Syd>enham would be iii exc*sa of what they are at jweeenb. He referred to the large, amount of improvements dfone by the Sydenham Borough Council. ~ loaa> of £25,000 had been raised, but during the term of its currency, about eleven yean, the rate had only been struck four or five times. Out of ordinary in-c-oma a large amount of work had' been done. If only maintenance had been undertaken the rates would 'have been lower. Dealing with the representation question, he contended that tbe outside portions of l-he district would not receive the same attention as they do at present. In addition to the loss of Government subsidy, £700, the increased expenditure of management was estimated by competeni authorities at from £1800 to £2000. Some said ihat amalgamation should be given a trial; if it were only a question of a trial lie would be prepaired. to adopt the scheme, but the fact, was that once they joked they could not get back to,their previous condition. Sydenham's representatives on the Greater Cliristchurch Council would be.<vutnumbered, for tine city would have a majority by getting one vote from each of the other districts. Referring to tlie water supply scheme of the city, he pointed' out that under it < : the rsticulation of Sydenham would jcost £30,000; whilst the Sydenham Council had prepared a scheme, which had been accepted by the ratepayers, that provided fo.' a Wxater supply and reticulation at a. cost of £15,000. This, he argued, was a sample of what would happen if amalgamation were accomplished—tlie cost of works would be increased " one-hundred fold. He advised extreme caution in dealing with the subject, and said that they should see that terms were arranged before agreeing to join the city. There had been no arguments - advanced in favour -of amalgamation in any shape, or form; on the other hand, the papers, ha* teemed with misrepresentations, abuse and positive falsehoods. Mr H. G. Ell, M.H.R., said he; had come to the meeting in some doubt as to whether it would be an open one or restricted only to the opponents of Sydenham joining the city, and he was pleased to learn from the Chairman that it was an open meeting. Hβ hoped that ■ the question before the meeting would receive the same, fair and impartial consideration, as wae given it at the meeting at Addington. (Cries of " No.") He was sorry to h«ar tihat they did not intend giving the question impartial consideration. Cr. Jones had advocated a larger Christchurch than that proposed by Greater Chri*tchurch, and yet he had said that the larger the district the greater the expense. Here was a contradiction right off. (A voice: "You are misrepresenting Or. tJones.") Mr Ell said he was not; Cγ. Jones had said what he attributed to him. Each district would pay the interest and sinking fund of loans raised in such district which benefited by the loans. Would tJie four representatives from,;Sydenham allow the mooey to be spent !» tb.3 centre? Hβ though* not* and taey couH rely, be thought, on tbe money being fairly and , evenly tiistrLbutea over fine whole district. There would always ■ be complaints from certain portions of a district that it was not receiving it* due proportion of expenditure. Regarding tie rates paid in Birmingham, he pointed out in that city no account, was taken of
outskirts had! not .been neglected, as shown by* tihe fact of the opening of a branch library a.t New town. As, to tlie contention- that there would be too large an area if t.he city, St. Albans, Sydenham, and Linwwod amalgamated, tlie area of these districts was only 4600 acres, which was smaller than the city of Nelson or of Palmereton North. The fact t.hat five hundred persons in Sydenham 'had signed the petition asking for a poll on the matter showeu that a large number sympathised with the movement. Cr. Joe-ps bad stated that in tne city in the year 1901 the rates had increased by £6000, whilst in Sydenham the rates had only been increased by £600 odd; but in Sydenham, according to fig-v ures supplied the speaker by Cr. MeMeekan, the rates in. Sydenham during 1901 lia*d been increased by £912. As the value of Sydenham was about one-sixth ->! the city, it would be seem that Sydenham rat?s 'had increased at about the same rate «« in tbe city. (Applause.) Regarding representation, lie pointed out that the voting power would rest with Wihat -are now tditi outside boroughs. In the years between 1897' and 1901 the population in the. city triad increased by 570, "w-hilab-those, in Sydenham, St. Albans, and) Linwood had increased by 2540. In addition, reprweatfyuion was according to population. Regarding the tramways, he said to would have preferred to seetdieai under, a. municipal ■authority, ami "bM they 'had Greatei Curistotairc'h "they would not have been I put to the expense of a Tramways Board. Cr. Jones had eaid that there were no ftrgumente in favour of amalgamation, but were they in favour of tlie method of the disposal of their garbage by depositing it n a (Cries of "No.") In every im.portant city i» England; the garbage wae dealt with by ■destructor. . (A Voice: "Well, it wasn't so in Bincing-hani, as I know." Laugibfcer.) Mα , Eil lefenred to the fact that the city destructor was not. at present -running at half iie power; if they got tihe garbage from the boroughs it would ba kept, fully employed. Already tbts whole of tbe electrical energy to be generated from tlie destructor had .been ordered. Tlie speaker referred to other services which, could be shared: by tihe larger district.
Mr J. Beattie said he failed to see in what respect amalgamation would benefit Sydenham. He considered that the Borough Council had worked well in tbe past, and had shown greater oonaideration to the ratepayers than any other district. The further removed a district was from Cathedral Square the lese consideration that, district would get. Hβ moved — "That this meeting is not in favour of amalgamation with the city." (Applause.) Cγ. McMeekan eecond«d the motion, and said that the attendance showed that there were many in the borough who were interested! in the subject, but, he asked, if Sydenham had twenty years ago asked to be taken over by the city, would the lily have done so? He thought not. As in the case of the abolition of the provinces, Sydenham would be tlie milch cow of the city, as Canterbury had been of the colony. He would have supported amalgamation if he considered they would be better treated than at present. Regarding the comparison made between the increase in the city a»d ! in Sydenham, he referred to the overdraft in the i case of the city ; if. Sydenham had not raised euf• fident' rates to pay their way their rates would have been lower. He stated that the figures quoted by Mr Ell as to the total increase in the rates of Sydenham were for the year 1900-1901, and not for 1901-1902.
Mr Bilcliffe said Sydenham would be very unwise to duplicate such services as those connfßfeted with the destruction oi rubbish and tJSe slaughter of stock for human consumption. He spoke st-ongly in favour of amalgamation. Mr Morrison also advocated amalgamation. Hβ ctipbatted Cr. Jones's argument regarding the increase <-f expense, and cited the case of .the gradual reduction of rates in Glasgow since rbat city went in for municipal trailing. •Mr Lafferty spoke -at great length against amalgamation unless iißtter teriijs were offered. Mr B. P. Manhire aeked Mr EU if he knew what the primary object of tlie city was in seeking amalgamation? Mr Ell eaid he did not know. Mr -luanhire asked if that object was not that the cdty might, by having a larger area, raise larger loans. Mr Ell said he was nob aware if that was the reason, but pointed out that Greater Christcburch could cot raise loans unless the ratepayers voted for them. Some confusion arose over the vote on tbe m*ion. When the vote in favour of the motion had been taJken, and the vote agaimt it was* in progress, objection was made that a number who were not ratepayers were holding up their hands. At thjb period there was a>- least 40 votes against the motion as compared with 29 in favour of it. The chairman asked all those who were not ratepayers to abstain from Voting. A number took their hands down. The chairman then declared the motion carried by one vote. A vote'of thanks to the chairman dosed the meeting.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19030130.2.9
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Press, Volume LX, Issue 11495, 30 January 1903, Page 2
Word count
Tapeke kupu
2,033GREATER CHRISTCHURCH. Press, Volume LX, Issue 11495, 30 January 1903, Page 2
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.
Acknowledgements
Ngā mihi
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Christchurch City Libraries.