WAIHOU RIVER BRIDGES.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4364, 11 January 1922, Page 1

WAIHOU RIVER BRIDGES.

PURIRI AND RIRRLIRI.

PLAINS COUNCIL DISCUSSION.

ARRANGING A CONFERENCE.

At Monday’s meeting uf the Hauraki Plains County Conn :il at Ngatea a communication was received from the Thames County Council enclosing a copy of a report sent to the Hon. Minister for Public' Works on the petition presented by the ratepayers in the special rating area praying that the warrant be not issued to the Thames County Council authorising the construction of the Puriri bridge. The letter also stated that the Thames County Council was agree* able to meet the Hauraki Plains County Council in confeience to hear the contending parties’ representation regarding the bridge. The report of the Thames County clerk, Mr H. T. G. McElroy, reads as -follows :

"I have checked the copy of petition forwarded to the Hon. Minister for Public Works by objectors in the Puriri bridge special rating area, praying that the warrant should no: be issued authorising the Thames County Council to construct the bridge, and I find as follows: that the poll was taken t on March 26, 1920, and declared carried, the voting being : For the proposal — 94 Against the proposal 53 147 This represents six Votes over and above the three-fifths majority required by law. Leaving out the Maoris, there were 128 ratepayers on the roll, representing 200 votes. Of these votes 81 were in respect of property on, the east side of the river (Thames) and 119 in respect of property on the west side of the river (Hauraki Plains). The signatures on the petition number 51, of which 31 claim to be ratepayers in the Thames County and 2(3 are stated as being ratepayers in the Hauraki Plains County. Of the 31 signatures (Thames County), only 16 were on the roll when the poll was taken, whilst 10 have become rate* payers by purchase or lease since that date. The remaining five were never ratepayers, and as far as I can ascertain have no qualification at present. Of the 20 signatures representing property in the Hauraki Plains County only 10 were on the roll when the poll was taken, and I have no knowledge that the remaining 10 have since bought into the area. However, to give them the benefit of the doubt, the position would -be as follows : Total number of votes in area, 200. Votes exercisable by 26 ratepayers in the Thames County, 27. Votes exercisable by 20 ratepayers in the Hauraki Plains County, 47. Difference in votes, 126. It is reasonable to assume that the promoters of the petition well combed the area for objectors, so that taking the total number of exercisable votes in the area at .200, the 46 signatories (that is allowing all the strangers to be bona fide ratepayers within the area) control 74 votes, so that tne total objectors are less than, two-fifths of the total votes on the roll. On taking the area on each side of the river separately, the result, exclusive of Maoris, is: THAMES COUNTY. Total number of votes on roll 81 Votes controlled by 26 petitioners, or less than twofifths — — ~ — 27 HAURAKI PLAINS COUNTY. Total number of votes on roll 119 Votes controlled by 20 peti tioners, or less than two* ■ fifths __ — — — 47 Taking the same example on valuation for the Thames County only, the figures are: Total value of area in Thames County £55,110 Total valuation ;of property occupied! by petitioners in Thames County £18,975 Or, again, less than two-fifths of the whole rateable value.. I have not the exact figures for the Hauraki Plains, but am quite sure the proportion woulcl be the same. Therefore, disregarding .the Maori votes and the value of the land still in the occupation of natives and i.he area of Crown land that will become rateable and benefit by the bridge, the result of the poll is clearly coh-t firmed by the fact that the petitioners asking for a new poll represent less than two-fifths, both in number and in valuation within the area, and this despite the fact that, as alleged, the purpose of tolls has been altered.' No justification, therefore, seems to exist for the taking of another poll. The clerk explained that th® petition referred to was not the petition submitted to the Hauraki Plains Council The Council was in favour of a conference being held at Ngatea, the date to .be mutually arranged. KIRIKIRI DELAY. The clerk (Mr E. Walton) sent tlie following letter to Mr F. E. Powell, consulting engineer: “Your letter of November 24 was read at the last meeting of my Council. I was then directed to write to you and ask you to hasten your -investigations so that your report will come to hand af the earliest possible date. “My Council has.not any false impression. with regard to your investigations, but unless you are able to conclude these very soon and present Continued in next Column.

Continued from previous Column, your our> meeting on Janu-. ary 9, 1922, it may be forced to take the view that there has been delay over the work.” Mr Powell expressed by letter his disappointment at the delay in commencing the Kirikiri boring ow’ing to implements being in use on a job that was not finished* in time. He hoped at last that the work was to be put in hand. A further letter from Mr Powell, dated January 4„ stated that the work was to’have been commenced last week by Mr J. Mouncs, who was perhaps the best qualified man for the work. Reasonable terms had been made for a suitable, plant with Mr Kirby, and would probably take the remainder of that week to rig the gear and get it in position. He did not anticipate that the actual work of boring would take more than a few days, and the work would be in progress at the time of the meeting. The work could have commenced a day or two before Christmas, but it was thought advisable to avoid the extra expense 'of travelling, broken time, and hire of plant. A telegram was received from Mr Powell on the evening of the meeting (Monday), to the effect that the gear was going forward and the work would be proceeded with right away. This wire arrived after the meeting •had concluded.