The Globe. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1877.

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

The Globe. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1877.

IK another column we publish a letter from Mr. Wynn Williams in reply to remarks made by us on the question of asphalting the footpaths of the city. Mr. Williams contends that the Council make the ratepayers of the outlying parts of. the town pay double the rates paid by those in the centre. Ho says that we surely cannot persist in maintaining that it is right to make one ratepayer pay ds in the £ when another is only paying Is Od. Yet this is, he says, precisely what the Council are now doing. One man has land which will let at £5 per foot, and he pays only the same as the owners of lands which let for Mr. Williams then goes on to say that not one ratepayer in fifty would be found to support the view of the question taken by the Council. We think Mr Williams has not replied to our arguments fairly. We attempted to prove that the Council have dealt justly by all in the manner in which they have decided to raise the funds necessary for the proposed work. showed that the question was one

affecting the city as a whole, and the owners of property in particular. One would imagine from the manner in Mr Williams puts it, that the general city funds were not called on to contribute a penny towards the cost of the work, whereas the very opposite is the case. The plan adopted by the Council recognises the fact that it is not only a city work, but that it also affects property holders individually. In yesterday’s issue we considerably understated the cost of the entire work, for it will cost not £12,000 but £17,820. This fact, however, tells entirely in favor of our view of the question. This £17,820 will be made up as follows ;—General Government grant, £8000; general city rates, £O9OO ; the sixpence per foot contribution, £7,920. It will thus be seen that the city contributes £9900 towards the work, and the property holders £7920. These figures may not be absolutely correct, hut they are near enough for the purposes of our argument. Now it must not be forgotten that the hulk of the £9900 should be regarded as the contribution of the valuable parts of the city, although the greater portion of the footpaths in this locality are already made. As a matter of fact then the central portions of the city will be rated in order to make the footpaths in the outskirts. The result is that the owners of land in the centre of the town will be called on to pay twice over. They have already paid, in most cases, a very large sum for making the paths in front of their premises, and they will be called on to contribute as well to the making of the paths in those parts of the city where these have not been laid down. Is Mr. Williams prepared to advocate the imposition of a general rate, and to refund to those persons the outlay to which they have been put? Were the City Council to adopt such a course we venture to predict that the inhabitants of the outskirts would soon have reason to regret this change. Notwithstanding Mr. Williams’s sneer at the argument, we maintain that the construction of asphalt footpaths all over the city will tend most certainly to raise the value of property, more especially in the outskirts of the town, and far more than repay the small sum per foot required. Mr. Williams is sorry 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. We join with him in this regret. Had the Council chosen it might under the previsions of the Municipal Corporations Act, clauses 202 and 208, charged the entire cost of the footpaths on the owners or occupiers of the lands and buildings, instead of only a small proportion. It is a pity Mr. Williams was not consulted when the Municipal Corporations Act was before the Assembly.