Page 4 Advertisements Column 1

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 374, 24 August 1875, Page 4

The drainage bill for Christchurch AND THE SUBURBAN DISTRICTS. Seeing an advertisement signed by five members of the City Council of Christchurch, stating their reasons for opposing the above Bill, we deem it to be our duty to give our fellow citizens a few of the many reasons we have for supporting it. They are as follows : ]. Because we are of opinion that in consideration of the large amount of sickness prevalent in and around Christchurch, immediate action should be taken to alleviate the sufferings of the inhabitants resident both within and without the city. 2. Because, although as citizens we should like to see the city extended so as to include all the thickly populated suburban districts, yet, as we find such extension to be at present quite impracticable, we consider the exigencies of the case demand that united action should be taken with the Road Boards in the establishment of a Drainage Board to undertake the arterial drainage of the whole district. 3. Because the Road Boards at present have no power to borrow money for permanent works, and should they obtain the necessary power, we are of opinion that separate systems of drainage for each district are not likely to prove either satisfactory or economical, and that such separate systems may prove a fruitful source of litigation in the future. 4. Because we consider the large sum now being expended for the drainage of the city will be of very little practical use if nothing is done to drain the suburbs, it being impossible to check the spread of contagious disease by the narrow strip of land known as the town belt.

1 5. Because the establishment of a Drainage Board is not calculated to increase the burden of ratepayers of Christchurch, but, on the contrary, will very probably cause the rates to be much less in the future than they will be if the city remains separate. Suppose no Drainage Board is established, the City Council will proceed to complete the side channelling of the streets and the construction of a few more main sewers, as arterial drains for the channels, iron tubes, &c, to convey sewage matter across the Avon, to connect with the outfall drain, and also to construct an additional sewer to the estuary, the present one having been proved to be quite inadequate to take the whole of the water from the city. The cost of such works cannot be estimated at less than £70,000, which means increasing the city rates to 2s in the £, exclusive of Waimakariri or education rates. Suppose, on the other hand, that the Drainage Bill is passed, and a Board elected, they proceed first to obtain the vote of Provincial Council, £ISOO, to pay for a “ good engineering scheme” (and which vote will otherwise most likely lapse), as it will be quite useless to spend it unless the local authorities agree to combine and -utilise such a scheme when obtained. They then endeavor to obtain a vote from the land fund, which will never 1 e obtained for each district separate; and failing which, we will suppose, the Board has to depend on rates. They will have first to borrow sufficient to recoup the city—£lß,ooo, the cost of its main drains. This will require a rate of on?y l£d, levied by the Board on the whole district, to pay interest, &c, on the £IB,OOO. Now, when the city has this sum in hand to spend on side channelling, and with the endowments promised in the Abolition Bill, Christchurch need never borrow another sixpence ; in fact, she will be able to reduce the general rate below the Is in the £ if thought advisable. Certainly we may assume that Is 5d must remain the maximum of City Council rates if the Board is established. The Board will then have to adopt its own scheme of drainage works necessary to be constructed in addition to those now existing. The character of these works should depend on the amount of endowment obtained from the Government: if large, the works cannot be of too comprehensive or complete a character. If, however, they are left to depend on rates, the Board should then confine its efforts to a moderate expenditure, say £60,000, which sum would require a further rate of about 3d in the £, making in all; including Is sdfor city, IJd for £IB,OOO, a total of Is 9Jd, This, we consider, is a complete answer to the assertion, that by having a Drainage Board, we shall be compelled to pay much heavier rates than by only draining the city by means of the City Council. In the one case the wants of the whole district will be attended to, in the other we shall have still to pay the rates, and the works will not extend beyond the town belts, the suburbs remaining undrained. 6. Because the Bill contains a clause limiting the maximum rating power to one shilling in the £l, it does not in the least follow that it will be the intention of the first Board elected to exercise that power (the Bill itself cannot have intentions), should, however, the Board decide t® use their full power, they will be enabled to borrow on present valuation £200,000 for Is in the £, whieh sum, it must be admitted, would be ample to pay for a thorough permanent system of drainage to last for all time, and when we consider the enormous benefits to be derived— First—By the improvement of the public health, Secondly—By the large increased value to property, Thirdly—By the immense increase of business caused by such a large expenditure, and also by the influx of monied people now driven away by the unhealthiness of the district, We think that, with even such a large outlay and additional rate, it would still be good policy to expend the one and incur the other, bearing in mind that the annual increase in the valuation of the whole district would tend to lessen the rates. FREDK. HOBBS, F. D. JONES, J. GAPES, S-21 9913 W. SCHMIDT.

w east, ANTED, General Mrs Sanjjstbik, Servant. Gloucester Arpiy street m