CIVIC TIDINESS

Evening Post, Volume CXXX, Issue 94, 17 October 1940, Page 10

CIVIC TIDINESS

People who move about Wellington freely will have their own opinions on the question of the city's cleanliness, and it is hardly likely that there will be unanimity one way or the other. Cleanliness is relative, and there are cSegrees of cleanliness. There is no limit to what might be achieved except time, trouble, and cost. Public opinion is the surest j guide, and the criticism of a body! like the Wellington Beautifying Society, to which we drew attention yesterday, should serve to stimulate public opinion on the question of keeping the open gardens and shrubberies, which have so enhanced the amenities of the city in recent years, free from the disfigurement of litter and rubbish. It would be unfair to put all the blame for untidiness such as exists on the. City Council, and councillors were entitled, in the discussion at lastnight'smeeting, to contest the view expressed by Councillor Wright that Wellington is a dirty city. No one, however, can deny tiiat it could be cleaner. The fault lies in part with, the careless and inconsiderate people in the community who leave their rubbish of all kinds anywhere that suits their convenience, regardless of the rest of the public. There is a good deal in what Councillor Wright said about the people not being educated to civic tidiness. What the City Council could do is to provide many more receptacles for rubbish, especially in the suburbs. The Mayor (Mr. Hislop) put it fairly when he said that they must give the average clean citizen a chance to deposit his rubbish; he could not be expected to carry it round all day. For the rest a campaign on the line? of the "Citizens protect your own property," which certainly reduced the vandalism of a generation ago, would help to foster an interest in civic tidiness and pride in the appearance of the city.