Untitled

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 927, 19 March 1881, Page 4

A long discussion took place at the Borough Council’s sitting on Tuesday last, in reply to a deputation for money assistance in the erection of a jetty at the termination of Carnaivon-street. Mr. Croft, the spokesman of the deputation, said it would cost £lO, and, considering its proximity to the Recreation ground, and that it would become the property of the Borough, he thought these were good arguments in support of his request for a grant of public money. The Council was divided on the question, and Cr. Tutchen’s motion for a grant of £lO (reduced from £2O) was negatived on the voices. While the Council acted discreetly in not voting public money on so slender a basis as that shown by the deputatiod, it is to be regretted that a contracted view is taken by some worthy Councillors in arriving at a decision as to how they should vote. Cr. Brown would not vote for the grant, because the jetty would not benefit “ all the ratepayers ;” but it is quite possible Cr. Brown would support a proposal to subsidise a cart-bridge over the Waikanae stream; and would, probably, furnish a ready argument in favor of the site being at the continuation of Custom-house-street, over any other street. Undoubtedly the proposed jetty would benefit “ all the ratepayers” who chose, or required, to take advantage of it. So with the present foot-bridge leading to the ocean beach; so with any other work of public utility. It cannot be fair—it is not in keeping with public requirements—to say that because all, or even the majority of ratepayers, will not be immediately, or directly benefitted by works of public utility and convenience, that subsidy shall not be given If we wait until each inhabitant becomes a direct benefittor from public works, there will be no progress. To carry out such an argument to its conclusion, would end in a refusal to subsidise, say, the hospital, because “ all the ratepayers” will not be benefit ted.

But still, we think the Council did right in not accedingHo the request of tfhe deputation. Ostensibly, it is said, the jetty is to provide accommodation for visitors to the Recreation ground ; but, in reality for the. convenience of a few' private residents in that part of the township. But whether this is so, or not, no evidence was adduced. Everything must have a beginning, and simply because a few persons initiate the matter, a refusal to support their plan, ought not to rest on that fact alone. If there was no public property to be considered in the matter, the request would not be tenable for a moment. Therefore, we are surprised to find that the deputation was not fortified with data sufficient to over-ride the objection of the Council, and to urge the convenience a jetty, in the place indicated, would be not only to a large number of persons, who, residing in the upper part of the township, have to go a long distance to find equal, or even less, convenience at the end of Gladstone road, but to the visitors attending a place of public resort. There are, certainly, arguments on both sides; but, in view of the unsupported application of Mr. Croft, the Council had no alternative but to refuse it. Perhaps, with a full Council, and a better case made out to support it, another application will be more successful.