KERBING ON DEFERRED PAYMENTS.

Evening Star, Issue 3797, 26 April 1875, Page 3

KERBING ON DEFERRED PAYMENTS.

To the Editor. Sib,—At the last meeting of the City Council, Councillor Prosser moved that all kerbing in future be done by loan, and that the interest and sinking fund be repaid by rate levied on the properties kerbed. With the exception of Councillor Gibson, who seconded the motion, all the rest of the councillors opposed it—namely, Messrs Walter, Isaac, Mercer, Grant, Reeves, Carroll, and Beck. Some councillors seemed to understand the motion, while others more acquainted with the adjustment of accounts saw no difficulty at all in carrying it out. At the same time, while unable to bring forward any arguments whatever against it, they urged three objections—first, that it was too late, and should have been brought forward ten years ago. Second, that it would be unfair to those that paid for their kerbing by giving greater advantage to those that had to pay for it (very liberal idea); third, that the citizens would sooner pay for it as at present. T Ji objection, it was stated, T moi he -w? 01 ’, that ifc would take L 100,000 to finish the kerbing of the City. faC r f v® tet «“ ent . 1 will ask those citirens wio will be called upon to pay tins 1,100,000. whether they think Councillor P. osser s motion atiaJll too late, apd whether theyjwonld not far sooner pay for u»*.by rate than by a lump sum aa at present.

The second objection—that it would be unfair to those who had paid for their kerbing—is a mere assertion, inasmuch as those who had paid for it would in no way be affected, not having to contribute one fraction towards the kerbing for others. It would be simply thus: The Council would borrow the money, do the kerbing, and rate the properties kerbed till the principal and interest were all paid. The Council at the present time does the kerbing out of the loan, charging the citizens for it directly, while they repay the money in thirty years! And why not give the citizens that benefit ? The third objection—that the citizens would sooner pay as at present—is an assertion that no Councillor should make, unless backed by the sanction of a large number of those requiring kerbing, who, there is no doubt, would sooner pay a rate of about 2d in the pound than pay the whole sum in twenty-one days, or become adebtor to the Council, dependent on their charity and at their mercy. Our worthy councillors seemed to forget that there is a large number of leaseholders—which is getting larger every day,, land in the City being oftener leased than sold—a class who feel this kerbing question a great hardship, having for the sake of a few years lease sometimes only two or three, to pay heavily for a thing they don’t want, for what they can’t touch, or does not belong to them, after they have paid for it, and for what, after all, they consider more of a public impiovement than a private benefit, and for what will last for one hundred years. If there are any citizens who would prefer to paj' for theri kerbing by rate let them at once petition the Council to pass Councillor Prosser’s motion. —I am. &c., 3s fid a Foot. York place, April 28.