OHOPE ROAD

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 3, Issue 285, 19 March 1941, Page 4

OHOPE ROAD

Sir.—l have read with much interest the various letters to your paper re roading of Ohope. The main object of the deputation that waited on the Council seems to be to force a road through the grounds that are enclosed at the Avestern end of the beach. As I was one of those responsible for the fencing in the first place, I would like to point out that it deprived no setS* tion holder of access to his property. Nor has it been any hardship to the public. Had it been left open they could only have gone on to the beach two or three chains further down than they do now. It is well known that there is only one man and two or three of his supporters at the back of all this agitation. The section at the end of the beach was nob part of the original settlement but a portion of Hillcrest. It has good access from the beach and the present owner must have beert v fuMyjß.vare as to the position wli -ftcWl)oug lit it. Therefore I see no reason why other properties should be damaged and the ratepayers called on to put in a very expensive and quite unnecessary piece of roading. As a farmer and a ratepayer I would respect fully ask the Council is this an opportune time to be considering a work of this nature ? Owing to lack of shipping the meat markets already show signs of collapsing, and dairy produce is also threatened. We have been warned that there are critical times ahead. I'f not out of place I would like to quote a passage from the speech of the Governor-General. It says : "The times are such that the attention of all responsible men and women should be directed towards essential matters only, and that those of less importance should properly be postponed until the present crisis has been surmounted" In conclusion I would like to state that any attempt to damage the grounds that have been laid out at such great expense and are considered an attraction and an asset to Ohope will be opposed by the general public. Yours etc., L. SISAM. Sir, —I previously slated through your columns that if correspondents writing in regard to the proposed Ohope Road had the courage their convictions and signed thefr names to their letters I would reply. This has been done by only one man, but as the letters arc assuming a verj' personal note I feel that I should clarify the matter for the general public which msA* be misled by your correspondents. The desire to have the road dedicated is in the interests of the present section holders and the general public. That one or two are endeavouring to block the progress of the beach in the face of the wishes of the large majority of the residents and the general public leaves the matter one which your readers can judge for themselves, I, personally, am accused of putting self lirst, but some of the writers should hardly make such accusations. They are only fighting for their own selfish ends by fencing a right-of-way and putting their own interests before those of a far greater number —that is all other residents and any visitors to the beach. I could do as those people have done and fence my section (No„ 10) and thus block the right-of-way also, but am ?n accord with the desires of- the Progress League the objccts of which I would repeat £>re to do the best for the most of the Ohopt people and make the beach one offering every possible attraction ror visitors from any New Zealand. If my friends sign their names to their letters I will deal with them more fully.

Yours etc., A. J. CANNING, President, Ohope Ratepayers' and Progress League. Sir, —The Councillors of the County Council are elected by. the ratepayers. As a matter of course then the wishes of the majority of the ratepayers should at all tim,«s be the first consideration of the councillors of the County Council. If, however, a councillor prefers to follow his own way and disregard the expressed wishes of the majority of his ratepayers then wc know what to do with that councillor. Yours ctc., OHOPE.