NEW BRIGHTON BRIDGE.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19063, 27 July 1927, Page 11

NEW BRIGHTON BRIDGE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESS. , I Sir.—T ta»<l in tout corresoondence I

oir, —l reaa in your correspuimeuue column this morning a letter , signed "Justice," which is not only a nom de plume, but is also a misnomer, owing to the unjust way in which he speaks of the action of those whom he accuses of "throttling the Avon by the erection of a low-bridge." .With .your permission 'I-should like to place a few facts before the public. The New Brighton Council, after consultation with other bodies concerned, decided to call for tenders for a new bridge at the present .level, but were informed by the City Council that in the interests of Greater Christchurch, and in view of probable increase of navigation following the deepening of the Avon, it was desirable ' that the new bridge should be built at , a higher level, giving an increased clearance of two feet. This meant an increase of cost estimated approxi- : mately. at £SOOO to meet, the increased cost of building, and money required to meet- expenditure involved in raising tho street approaches and possible pur- ' chase of land. Of this amount the City Council, when approached, would only consent to contribute 17£ per cent. ' on the original cost, and, as New Brighton could not possibly meet the increased cost, a tender for the constniction of a new bridge at the present. level was- provisionally accepted, but further proceedings were stayed by i an injunction obtained against any ] building «t present level. Now, one ] can only feel deep sympathy for the people of Greater Christchurch whose , sensitive feelings are so deeply wounded by "throttling the Avon," but the ques- ' tion is, by whom is the throttling being done? It is simply a question of find- 1 ing. that £SOOO. May I venture to hope that indignation will'rise so high at the indignation meeting called for ■ tomorrow that the amount will be found without calling on New Brighton? The opposition at present existing is caused not by any desire to oppose the wishes of those who wish for increased facilities for but because, while we may b,e lacking in common sense, or even horse sense, we claim to have sufficient donkey sense to know that £ the ratepayers of New Brighton are i not in a position to welcome any Bpe- 1 cial rating to meet the increased cost of 1 c the bridge, although it is just possible r (I am not a Councillor) that we might i find 17J per cent., leaving the balance c to ''Justice'' and the public of. Greater £ Christchurch.—Yours, etc., c W. MILES. j Now Brighton, July 26th. .