THE GLOBE. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1880. MUNICIPAL MATTERS.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2127, 17 December 1880, Page 2

THE GLOBE. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1880. MUNICIPAL MATTERS.

As is customary, though this year in a far more informal way than on previous occasions, the present Mayor took occasion, in replying to the toast of his health, after his installation, to refer to several matters connected with the city. Two of these, as being to our mind highly important, deserve more than a passing notice. As will bo remembered, the Mayor has, on more than one occasion, expressed his very strong opinion that the completion of the side channelling scheme is a necessity. With this we think all will agree. As pointed out, when the sidechannelling was in full swing our deathrate was reduced most remarkably, until Ohristchurch occupied quite an exceptional position on the returns of the Registrar General. Since, however, the city has extended, and, contemporaneously with that, the scheme for side channelling ceased to be carried out, tho death-rate has increased far more than the extension of the city warrants. This very necessary work was put to the ratepayers, but was so mixed up with the expensive water scheme that the ratepayers rejected it. From the very unanimous expression of approval which was given since to it by the Councillors, when the Mayor requested their co-operation with him in once more placing the work before the citizens, we anticipate that this will be done at no distant date. Given a complete sidechannel system, properly supplied with flushing power, and there is no reason whatever why Ohristchurch should not become, not only a pleasant but a healthy place of residence. Once more—and for the purpose of impressing on the ratepayers the necessity of the work—we venture to express a hope that they will cheerfully sanction the raising of a loan to effect this very desirable object. Oa the second point touched on by the Mayor, viz., with regard to the establishment of a market, we take leave to differ with him. The arguments used against the project •eem to us not such as will, on careful consideration, hold water. The Mayor says the time has not yet come to erect a permanent market. This we think is amply contradicted by the success attendant upon the establishment of the present admittedly temporary one. That success, and the consequent convenience to the public would be doubled by the establishment of a Market such as we have advocated iu previous articles. No gorgeous or elaborately ornamental building would be required, and there can be no doubt that not only would the first cost be recouped to the city, but a revenue would be derived from the rents. As to the time not having arrived, what do the Council intend to do with the Market Square ? Do they intend to leave it in its present unsatisfactory state ? The want of a Market has been proved to exist, and there is nothing to be gained by delay. We are iu as good a position to carry out the work now as we shall be twelve months hence, and I if it is done at once we shall be spared another year's contemplation of those miserable sheds occupying the centre of a flourishing city such as this. It. is not as if the experiment of a public market has been, as in other cities, tried and failed. Here in Ohristchurch it has been proved to be a public benefit, and tho people have consequently patronised it liberally. Thus the argument—which is regarded as like official utterances, nuanswerable —that Corporation Markets have been found in Wellington and elsewhere not to be a success, has no weight whatever. In these cases the Corporation began at the wrong end. They erected permanent Markets before they had ascertained whether the public wanted them or not. This is not the case here. Our experience has been exactly the contrary. Another great stumbling-block put in the way by the opponents of the scheme is the undesirability of the Corporation undertaking, with public money, to compete with private enterprise. Now this, like all the rest of the arguments, is fallacious, when looked into. There is no interference with, but rather a judicious fostering, far tho benefit of <ha pnblic, of private enterprise. If the Corporation were to turn salesmen themselves, and fill the stalls in the proposed Market with their employes, we could understand the force of this argument. But it proposes nothing of the kind. All that the Corporation does is to provide, for a certain rental, accommodation for business people in certain lines to carry on their trade, so that a public waut may be supplied. They do the very same thing now with the shanties. They charge a rental, exercise supervision, ami actually have a committee of the Council whose duty it is to see the Market properly conducted. We confess that we are unable to see the distinction. The only difference is that in the one case the City would have erected, on a valuable site, a building worthy of itself, whereas now we have buildings to which we can scarcely point with pride. Therefore this objection seems to us to have no weight whatever. Now we come to what, in most enterprises, is the difficulty, viz., the question of finance. The amount required to erect a building which would serve all our purposes for some years to come would not exceed £ISOO or £2OOO. This we are confident would be recouped in a very short time, so that it would be merely as it were investing the money for a short period, and the burden on the ratepayers would be so infinitesimal as not to be felt. Iu order to do this it would not be necessary to charge a prohibitive rent, but one fair alike to the city and to the tenant—not such an absurdly low one as now obtains. The careful consideration of all the points of the question will, it seems to us, bring the ratepayers to see that not only will they be beautifying the city, and removing what is now a positive eyesore, but they will bo establishing what will ultimately become a source of revonne, and a boon to the general public.