The Globe. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1877.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 1029, 12 October 1877, Page 2

The Globe. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1877.

Ms. Wynn Williams is making a letermined effort to create an agitation against tlie means adopted by the Council for asphalting the footpaths of the city. “ There is,” he says “no principal or fairness, in the imposition oi <o one-sided a tax. To make all the wners of property in the city, whethe/ icir property is worth £5 per foot 01 3s per foot, pay at the same rate is a monstrous injustice, and, .1 am <juite

convinced, is so grossly unequal, as to render the rate void at law.” Now what is this gross injustice of which Mr. Williams “Mfie Council has been guilty P Let r,s examine into the facts. The Council proposes, at an expense of some £12,000, to asphalt the whole of the footpaths within the city to half the width. The funds are to be provided as follows : A sum of £3OOO, received from the General Government, has been set apart for this work; an equal amount is to be taken from the city rates extending over a period of three years, and the owners of property will be called on to pay the sum of six pence per foot frontage, which will make up the balance. The Council we think deserve credit for the excellent financial arrangements they have made, by which so great a boon will be conferred on the citizens. The work is surely a most desirable one. Not only will the inhabitants of the town be greatly convenienced by it, but the owners of property will also be benefitted. When the work is completed every part of the city will be accessable, and the comfort and convenience of all will be secured. Christchurch will be rendered more attractive as a place of residence, and as a consequence property will increase in value in every district of the city. The plan adopted by the Council appears to us as equitable as it possibly can be. It recognises that the citizens as a body and the owners of property individually are interested. So the sum of £OOOO is to be taken from city funds, and £OOOO from the owners of property. When the scheme is completed everyone in the city will reap the benefit and so the funds of the city are called on to contribute. But it will also improve the value of property, and so the owners are invited to help also. We cannot see how the inhabitants of the outskirts or the town are having an injustice done to them in having to pay at the same rate per foot as those who own land in the middle of the town. On the contrary, the inhabitants of the outskirts will have the best of it. The construction of asphalte pavements will be a greater benefit to their land, than to that in the centre of the town. The natural growth of the city will make property near the centre more and more valuable, apart from the nature of the footpath in front of it, but for some time to come, sections near the belt will be more or less valuable according to their accessibility. But nevertheless, owners of land in the business blocks have already paid, chiefly for the convenience of the general public, very considerable sums towards the asphalting of the footpaths in front of their property. In most cases they have done so without a murmur, and we feel sure that the very small sum of sixpence per foot frontage which is now demanded by the Council will be most willingly paid by nearly every owner of property. We cannot sc. on what ground Mr. Wynn Williams expects a public meeting of ratepayers to condemn the scheme of the Council. It prominently before the public at intervals during the last twelve months, and no opposition, as far as we remember, has been raised to it. Tenders for the work were publicly called for, and one most advantageous for the pockets of the ratepayers and citizens accepted. The scheme should have been opposed before the contract for the whole work was signed, but now it is too late in the day to begin an agitation against it.