Dear Sir

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 5, Issue 6, 21 January 1942, Page 4

Dear Sir

Letters to the Editor must be clearly written on one side of the paper only and where a nom-de-plume is used the name of the writer must be included for reference purposes. The Editor reserves the light to abridge* amend or withhold any letter or letters. THE WAIMANA DIFFERENCE Sir, —I have no wish to prolong this discussion but I am at least entitled to fair play. It lifts been evident for a long period that the County Chairman is determined not .to allow that where I am concerned. His personal remarks at the last meeting were both unfair and incorrect * and with his own words he has censured himself as a chairman. He states "there was trouble when I came on the council" (a statement which is quite incorrect) he continues, "has been ever since and will be long after I am off it." Let us review my close with the council and staff over HF period of years since 1925 when my* road cutlet —which was the main Opotiki-Whakatane highway and , which crossed the front of my farm • —was closed, and the present road , was commenced under the direction of the late Mr Walter Reid as county . chairman. During all that time, P when the hardest part of the construction work was carried out, and many difficulties had to be overcome, there was not at any time anything ' Approaching a dispute between myself and the council —in all the nego- g • tiations the most cordial and friend- > ly relations existed between myself, t the chairman and other councillors, • and without a doubt if the road had i been completed under the guidance : of Mr Reid there would not have . been any disputes. Mir Burnett well knows that the' i trouble commenced with the advent - of the present riding member and - 'through his consulting and planning ■ about the road with a property own- • er who should not have been brought ■ into these discussions about my outI let road. The chairman in his haste > to castigate me by saying "he is never satisfied" evidently has forgotten 1 that only a short time ago the Arbi- ' tration proposed by the council as a I settlement was accepted by me but > was immediately turned down by the :• other party. t Out of all the contradictious in the " two council discussions about the river diversion one fact stands out plainly, that the work was carrietl out in-haste by the riding mefflbef > without any authority from the council and also committing the , ratepayer whose outlet it was alleg- 'yf ed to protect. I must thank you, Mr Editor, for j, correcting Cr Smith's incorrect state- " ' , ment at the last meeting. What- . chance -has a ratepayer of getting ; fair play when irresponsible stateI ments like these are made by a , Works Committee member and then I the Works Committee's decisions are ; accepted by the council as final. ' As a ratepayer I have suffered a . grave injustice—in the shelter of the . Council Chambers —without reproof . or censure from the chairman—the r riding member has, by innuendo ( and untrue personal remarks, at- | tempted to influence and prejudice? other councillors against me. I have been hauled before the Court like a criminal for doing the same as other users of the road—that is, leaving gates open fo<r convenience and convicted on the incorrect statements ■ of witnesses and counsel. This, notwithstanding the written assurance from the council that all road users would be treated alike. In asking •for a report on these matters by a Government official I only want the facts to come to* light—in the past these have been suppressed or misrepresented. The chairman has twice stated "there is nothing to hide" — so why the objection to investigation. Yours etc., G. KIRKBRIDE. P.S. One of the difficulties mentioned above was when an acre' of land through river erosion, had to be used for the road, and construction work was then held up for over X& months because the owner demanded ten acres in exchange. The P.W.D., engineer would not for a long time : sanction such an unequal exchange but the owner finally got the tenj W' acres. ;