ASPHALTING FOOTPATHS.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 1030, 13 October 1877, Page 2

ASPHALTING FOOTPATHS.

To the Editor of the Globe. Sir, —You have not answered my argument in this matter fairly. I contended, and I prove it, that the Council make the ratepayers of the outlying parts of the town pay double the rates jpaid by those in the centre. You say that improving the footpaths by asphalting them increases the value of the land. If so, all I can say is, the land must be of very little value indeed. You surely cannotpersist in saying thet it is right to make one ratepayer pay 3s in the pound, when another is only paying one and sixpence ? This is precisely what the Council are now doing. One man has land which will let at £5 per foot and he pays only the same amount, as the man whose land lets for ten shillings. What can be clearer])? And yet you contend that this is perfectly fair. I think it’s a most peculiar kind of business, and I will venture to say that not one ratepayer in fifty can you find to support your’s and the Council’s view of the question, if there was a poll. I think that we on the outside, have the disadvantage in any way. We have been paying rates even since the commencement of the municipality, and yet for years, the largest portions were of course necessarily spent in the centre. And now we are called upon to pay the same rate, for constructing the footpaths, as those whose property is of ten times the value! This you call being entirely to the advantage of those, whom I contend, are being hardly dealt with. I am very sorry to find that so little is understood about the true principle of rating, which is that rates should be made to fall as equally as possible on all. It seems, however, that the Council don’t think so, and this is their opinion, it is right to make one ratepayer pay a hundred per cent more than another. Yours, &c., H. WYNN WILLIAMS.

To the Editor of the Globe.

Sik, —You saj in your leader that the City Council proposes, at the expense of some £12,000, to asphalt the whole of the footpaths —“ and the owners of property will be called on to pay the sum of sixpence per foot frontage.” I hold section 108, on lease from the Church Property Trustees. The lease will expire in six and a half years. I do not claim to be the owner —my property will not be beuefitted. I should be glad to get rid of the responsibility of the lease. I am paying more ground rent than the section is worth. I hope the City Council will look to the freeholders, and not to the leaseholders, for this extra sixpence per foot frontage. Yours, it., WM. PARKEK,

To the Editor of the Globe .

Sir, —1 beg to inform you that the sum total named by you, in to-day’s issue, for the asphalting of the footpaths of the city is calculated to lead the public astray. My contract with the Council is for sixty miles in length by one yard and a half in width, at 2s per superficial yard. I think if you will take the trouble to go into figures you will find that the total amount is £17,820. Yours, &c., Samuel Smash* October 13th, 1877.