AN OPPOSING VIEW

Evening Post, Volume CXIX, Issue 31, 6 February 1935, Page 12

AN OPPOSING VIEW

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—To a ratepayer in the Taupo Riding it is interesting to note that all and sundry are taking a hand in the question of our bridge. » In the first instance I voted for the bridge because, as a motorist, it resolved itself down to a -plain business proposition. It costs me, as a minimum 3s 6d return trip from Paremata to Plimmerton; the toll wouldhave been Is return, and therefore I saved 2s 6d in addition to saving some half-hour running time.

The proposal has now changed whereby the ratepayer is being asked to pay for the bridge thereby ensuring that I save the whole of 3s 6d and

knowing as I To that many of the property owners in Plimmerton, in common with ratepayers throughout the Dominion, find it difficult to pay the rates now levied which it must be admitted are unduly high, I. will not either by my vote or counsel impose this further burden of £.7000 upon them. If they are to be asked to further charge their property then let it be for some utility such as water or drainage which is a necessity and will be for the common good of aIL

I notice that th^ Automobile Club support the new proposal. Their stand is justified because not one of the club's representatives, mentioned in the Press as being in favour of the scheme arc residents of Plimmerton and if I, as a motorist, did not reside at Plimmerton, it would not be illogical for me to be in favour of quicker access provided by the. ratepayer rather than a scheme whereby I had to contribute Is towards my day's |p'oasure. Surely this is common sense, but the ratepayer must take this fact into consideration when dealing with the matter.

The organiser for the proposal, who incidentally has no interest in Plimmerton, states that 75 per cent, of the liability is. upon the Main Highways Board. He does not dwell upon the fact that this relates to under one mile I of road into Plimmerton. He has overlooked the position that a free bridge will mean an influx of motorists who will cost the ratepayers treble main-! tenance in respect of the poor macadam roads throughout the riding. Further factors are ■ dust nuisance I and danger to children both items which call for action, in the first case tar sealing and in the second supervision which will be extremely costly and the bill for which will have to be met by the ratepayer. ' Various correspondents have, I notice, imported Mr. Hoggard into the controversy, and I would like to correct the impression conveyed. Mr. Hoggard has been helpful but as chairman of the county he has been impartial. Each councillor is in charge of the ridrrig he represents, and the Taupo Riding having signified its desires expressed by its councillor received Mr. Hoggard's support as chairman. To load him with any other responsibility is not. only wrong but highly improper. It has caused no little speculation on the part of the ratepayer as to why no details are j available to those concerned as .to the price of the lowest tender, and the whole position and story of the bridge has gathered unto itself an air of mystery that is intriguing. The new scheme is said to be part of the muchdiscussed low-lying north' road, and if this is so then it is not proper to ! penalise this small district with £7000—to do so is just as logical*as one non-motorist ratepayer who said if the motorist desired him to contribute to the motorists' bridge why should net the motorist contribute to his train fare. .-....,...■.

Certainly the matter requires careful analysis by all before the 13th disregarding the plausible reasons advanced by those who are determined to push this proposal through and who fail to see the multitude of disadvantages.—l am, »tc.,

MOTORIST RATEPAYER.