ON FOOTPATHS.

Feilding Star, Volume XII, Issue 112, 14 March 1891, Page 2

ON FOOTPATHS.

TO TflK KDITOR OF THH STAR Sik,— ln your issue of March 10th a etter appears under the heading of 1 Borough Footpaths," and signed by 'No Favor .Ratepayer." I desire to point out to the writer that his statement jf " No Funds " as a reply from the Borough Council to an application for a footpath in Manchester street is incorrect. The only application' that I am aware of was one received on October 2nd, 1889, from Mr John Taylor, who required a uulvert in the drain opposite his property in Manchester street. On November 7th of the same year the following resolution was proposed by Cr J. C. Thompson, seconded by Cr T. R. Chamberlain, andcarried, " That Mr Taylor be informed the Council agrees to have the improvements asked fur in front of his premises effected on conditiou that he pay half the cost of the whole work." A copy of this resolution was scut to Mr Taylor and on the 13th. November that gentleman wrote declinintr the Council's offer. It has been for ye irs a standing rule that any rate payer desiring a i'ootpith in front of his or her property and Willing to contribute one half the cost, the Council has met them by paying the other half. Bye-law 73 provides for rhis. I point out this to show that the Council in granting the Grey street residents application conferred no more favor on them than they are perfectly entitled to under the Bye-law quoted.— l am, &c, W. G. Haybittle. ' TO THE EDITOR OF THK STAR. Sir,— ln your issue of the 12th instant, "Property Owner in Grey Sti'eet" gives soine very misleading statements re question of footpaths. He says " The fact is" the Council offered to be at half the expence of making a footpath fronting my property and, further, that I refused the offer, both of which statements are absolutely false. (I consider it would be a waste of public money to put a footpath in front of my property while the remaining part of the street is without any such convenience.) The request I made of the Council had no reference whatever to a footpath, but simply related to the public nuisance, viz., the- drain, and the offer I made, was that if the Council would put in a box drain I was willing to be at:the v expense of the whole of the fillm^*^^. which offer the Council did not accept,' and which work, I think the ratepayers W^ll agree, would be a greater public benefit that the footpath in Grey street, which has called torth this correspondence.- I have nothing to say against the making of the footpath in Grey street, which is strictly in accordance with the established rules of the Council, but for some time it will be of very little benefit to the general public. What I see so objectionable in the action of the Council is their rejecting the'yery liberal ofter re the abolition of the mantrap (drain) of which they must be proud. I have written this "so that the general public should not arrive at wrong conclusions." — I am, &c. John Taylor.