The Globe. FRIDAY, MARCH 9, 1877.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 845, 9 March 1877, Page 2

The Globe. FRIDAY, MARCH 9, 1877.

Our Tuesday the ratepayers of Christchurch will be called on to decide the question of whether the Corporation shall purchase the section of land opposite the Bank of New Zealand for the purpose of widening the street, and for erecting public offices thereon. The scheme, as far as we understand it is, to take ten feet of the land so purchased for the roadway, and to use the remainder as a site for a Town Hall and Municipal Offices. The buildings are to be so designed that shops shall occupy the frontage all round, the rent of which, it is held, will pay the interest on the entire outlay. No one will deny, we think, that it would be a very desirable thing to have this street at that particular part considerably widened, if it can be done at no cost to the ratepayers. On the other hand, if the proposal will throw any additional burden on the citizens, we think it should be rejected. The traffic of cities, larger than Christchurch is likely to be for the next century, has passed through as narrow passages as that at the Bank of New Zealand. All that is wanted for the present is a bye-law regulating the speedof trafficatthat and other corners in the city. If that were secured, no real danger need be apprehended. But were the necessity more pressing than it is, we would ask the promoters if they have considered the cost P They propose to borrow a sum of £30,000, to be applied to the purchase of the land, and the erection of the buildings. But, would the sum named do more than purchase the land alone? The owner, it is stated, wants £32,000 for the block, but the Council are of opinion that £17,000 is about its value. Are they satisfied that the arbitrators will agree with them, and not with Mr. Morten ? As far as we can see they have no right to assume anything of the kind. The land alone may cost them £30,000 itself; and, if that is the case, where is the money for the buildings to come from? Are the ratepayers prepared to run the risk of having to spend £40,000 or £50,000 for the proposed luxury ? if they are not, we would advise them to reject the entire scheme, as in all probability it will land them in that expenditure before they have done with it. When this question was discussed at the special meeting of the Council on Monday last, Cr Hobbs stated that “ he had set his shoulder to the wheel, and would not flinch from carrying forward what he considered to be a public duty.” We hope, therefore, that this gentleman will satisfy the ratepayers on Tuesday night that the scheme is in every respect a feasible one. It will not be enough for him to assert that it is necessary, but he must show the ratepayers that it is. Cr. Hobbs has of late shown a tendency to undervalue public opinion on matters municipal; but he ought to remember that after all it is not his own money he is assisting to spend, but that of the ratepayers, and surely they are entitled to be heard in the matter.