COUNCILS V. ROAD BOARDS.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3578, 29 December 1882, Page 3

COUNCILS V. ROAD BOARDS.

[To the Editor of the Daily Telegraph.] Sir, —In your leader of the 27th you have favored us with your opinion re Councils v. Road Boards, and the only argument that I make out in the said leader in favor of Road Boards is because Hastings has numerous streets, etc., which a Road Board is most adapted to look after, consequently you advocate the dual system of rating for the whole County because you think it is the interest of one particular place to do. Now, Sir\ Hastings should now be constituted a Town Board, which no doubt it soon will be, and when that comes to pass I would ask what will there be left for a Road Board to do in that district, for the roads will be principally either Town Board roads or County roads. My ideas are to arrive at a system that will confer the most benefits generally, and it is now patent to all who take an interest in the matter that some districts are considerably more favored with County roads than others, yet the unfavored districts have to pay County rates all the same ; and it is also patent that under this dual system there are districts where the controlling influences reside on the side of a County road, whereby they use that influence to prevent a Road Board rate being struck, so as to save their own pockets, but those unfortunates who live on a bye-road are therefore prevented from getting a passable Road Board road to a County road, although, as I said before, they pay equally in County rates. So much for tbe dual system. My argument, therefore, is that, if the County controlled all the roads (with the exception of large townships, which should be constituted Town Boards), those roads would receive the same consideration, which should be tbe case when the whole County pays equally in rates. As it is now some roads are impassable in winter through negligence. I could instance several, but suffice to point out two important ones, viz., Papakura to Farndon, and Puketapu to Petane, which are anything but creditable, more especially as our road is a feeder to the railway, and is required by a large number of ratepayers. You make a very weak statement when you say it is absurd to think that the Council only meeting once a month could give sufficient attention to small matters. Now, Sir, I say quite different; I say the Council meeting monthly could attend to all matters, for Road Boards have no regular meetings, in fact some only meet two or three times a year, and I should think each councillor would know the wants of the riding be represents better monthly than a Road Board which only meets at irregular times. As to additional supervision being required under the County system, I cay it would require no such thing, for the overseer has now to pass all highway districts aa be travels to the present County road?, consequently it wffflid not entail much more travelling "for him to look after the whole. As to an engineer being required that is simply a scare, for the whole thing is simply a question of maintenance, which needs no engineer. In conclusion I maintain that . under the dual system roads will not be carried on so uniformly or as equitably to all ratepayers, and I contend it is in a County point of view tbe question should be looked at.—-I am, &c.' John Bennett. December 29, 1882.