PLAINS BRIDGE SCHEME.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4476, 6 October 1922, Page 3

PLAINS BRIDGE SCHEME.

SUPPORT AT WAITAKARURU. COUNCIL’S POLICY ENDORSED. A VERY QUIET MEETING. Confidence in the Hauraki Plains County Council’s bridge policy was expressed on Wednesday evening at a meeting of Waitakaruru ratepayers, who unanimously expressed an opinion that the Council handled the bridging scheme in the only and best possible manner for the ratepayers of the county. Mr W. Stretton was elected to the chain There were present Messrs J. C. MiUer (county chairman) C. W. Harris, C. W, Parfitt, T. McLoughlin (county councillor,s), J. Higgins (county engineer), and about 16 local residents. The chairman invited the councillors to explain the bridge proposals. He had heard that, there was a petition circulating against the Kirikiri bridge. Mr Miller said he had had a’trouble getting to the meeting owing to a Jack of bridges. He did not know whether the petition was against the bridge or against bridges being county matters. A bridge being nearer the speaker than any other councillor made it difficult for him to say exactly what he thought. A bridge was, however, a gateway. Regarding the policy, he said rating areas were not satisfactory. To divide the responsibility there was nothing else for *t but to make all bridges county matters. Some of those who were opposing' the policy contended that they were being treated like children, as one man had put it “I think they should leave us alone, as councillors don’t do anything right.” He was pleased when the Council almost unanimously decided to make them county bridges. A GOOD BARGAIN. The chairman contended that the Council had done quite right in making bridges county matters. They had done the right thing as far as bridges go. The Turua people should look a little bit further.. Mr H. Torr asked if the Council was afraid there would be an adverse vote on the matter. Mr Harris said the Council had made a wonderfully good bargain in connection with the Kirikiri bridge. The total cost was approximately £60.000, of which the Government would find half, the Thames Borough £12,000 the Thames Cdunty Counc’l, £6OOO, and this County £12,000. It had been a splendid business transaction. He granted that good roads were wanted, but it was no use coming to a river and being unable to go further. "Why they were not putting the proposals to the ratepayers was be cause, more than one local body was concerned. It was impossible to put it before the ratepayers, as the Council had entered into a contract. Mr Torn: Are other local bodies proceeding under section 119 ? Mr Harris: We are the controlling body, and have promised the othsr bodies that we Would proceed under section 119 of the Public Works ActEQUITABLE AS POSSIBLE, Mr R. T. Williams cpngratulated the councillors on the stand thev were taking over this matter. With regard to the Turua people asking the Minister not to take a grant, surely they were not silly enough to cut their own throats. Mr Parfitt said that when they de cided to make the bridges count!’ matters they desired to make it as equitable as possible for the whole county. The following bridges were proposed : Kirikiri, Netherton-Hiku-taia, Pipiroa, Ngarua, Patetonga, and Maukorc It was thought to take over those special rating areas for Ngatea and Puke bridges. The total cost to the county on bridges would be approximately £48,000. While introducing that comprehensive bridge policy they were providing for outlets for all"the county. It did not. follow that all the bridges would be built immediately. The first bridge that was required was to connect with Thames across the Waihou River. They had one at Puke. He thought they had decided on the best policy possible. All in the county would gain a direct or indirect beheflt from all bridges. PETTY SPITE. Mr McLoughlin said he was born in Thames, and from the time he had been able to read the newspapers he had read of bridges over the Waihou. There had always been proposals to put bridges over that river, and pwing to differences of opinion there were., no bridges now. The Plains County Council had made a good bargain. The Kirikiri bridge was necessary for the success of this county. That also, applied to other bridges enumerated. The foundation of opposition at Turua, he said, was based on the dispute over the proposed Pu- , riri bridge. The two gentlemen who had headed a deputation for .the Puriri bridge were now up against the Kirikiri bridge. It was, he thought, only petty spite, because they did not get their PuHri bridge. Regarding the secession of Tahuna. he said he had recognised from the first that Tahuna should not be in the Plains County, which council had decided to offer no, opposition If the ratepayers wished to break away. It was in the best interests of Tahuna and this county to let Tahuna go. He also spbke regarding Nethertoh’s threat that if! they did not get good roads they would secede. Mr Parfitt: I suppose you will have a-say in that? Mr McLoughlin : No, they have ail the say. He said that when the Netherton people found out that the Ohinemuri County Council, had been taking a large sum for a sludge channel and ruining the land round Netherton and Paerba they would not want to go back to Ohinemuri. ' BRIDGE RATES. Mr Harris detailed figures concerning bridge rates, of which the following are extracts: The unimproved value per acre of Waitakaruru swamp land is £13.3 and of the hill land £1.3. The nates-in the £ on the various bridge® are as follows (hill land rates bracketed): Kirikiri, 2 l-3d (1 5d *, Piplrba, 2 l-3d (l-sd) : HikutaiaNetherton, 1 3-5 d (15d) ; Ngarua and

Patestonga bridges, 1 3-5 d (1-5); Orchard and Puke bridges, 2-<3d (l-17d) ; total, 8 8-15 d (%d). The total rates for each riding ,are: Turua, inside Kopu Ferry approach, roads area, 22 5-6 d, outside 14%d; Waitakaruru, swamp land 8 8-15 d, hill, land %d: Netherton, north of Southern Awaiti 9%d, Southern Awaiti 1 1-12 d ; Patetonga. inside Orchard Bridge area 7 3-sd, otuside 5 16-25 d. hill land Id. Mr Harris: These figures will p’ainly show you that, the Council is trying to protect your interests. The Council would give all those bridges at a very small rate. As the county developed and became more settled Che rates would be much less. Mr Parfitt said the estimates for the bridges were made out at the highest of prices. If estimates were to be made mi the present-day prices it would be found that the estimates would be much less. TIE UP THE DISTRICT. Mr Harris: How ratepayers can oppose such a scheme" it is hard to realise. The method they’re adopting is going to tie up the district for some time. We feel that with your support and the support of the county generally we will do our best to see the scheme through. I hope the explanation we have given to-night will throw a little light.. I hone you will support our scheme. Mr I. Haley: Has the Government, offered you half for the Kirikiri bridge ? Mr Harris : No. We h,ave asked th-) Government for it. We anticipate .that we will receive a £ for £ subsidy on that bridge. We have every reason to suppose that the Government wi'l come to light with the subsidy. If we pull together we’ll, get ft all right. Mr Torr: On ;the figures Mr Harris has g : ven us it seems foolish to turn the thing down. This’ bridge scheme will be an asset we would be very foolish to lose. Mr McLoughlin said he had hopes of the rate being lowered when the Council got in all the new land. He reminded them that the councillors had. to pay the rates the same as other “QUIET AND ORDERLY.” The chairman: Does anyone else want to ask any questions ? There was silence for some minutes. "Quiet and orderly,” one councillor was overhead to whisper to another. The chairman proposed that the meeting move a vote of confidence tn the Council on its bridge policy. He was sure the Council had done the right thing. Mr McLoughlin said that without the Kirikiri bridge the epunty did not. have one main road, tut with it they would have about four main roads. With this scheme they had. with the Maukoro bridge, made a start with the Waikato-Auckland main road. MOTION OF CONFIDENCE. ' Mr Williams moved, “That the ratepayers of Waitakaruru feel that the councillors have taken this Bridge matter ove»- in the only and best possible way for the ratepayers of this county.” Mr H. Torr seconded, and the motion was carried quietly, without dissent. Mr Harris, as One of the Waitakaruru riding representatives on ths Council, thanked those present on the unanimous vote of confidence in the Council’s bridge policy. It was gratifying to find that they recognised the Council was working in their best interests. It was a better w,ay than being at their throats all the time. It would create a further incentive for the Council to dp its best for the ratepayers of this county. Mr Parfitt said he had already maintained that they had the confidence of the ratepayers. He had told the Turua. ratepayers that there was no opposition in his riding. Mr Williams moved a vote of thanks to the councillors for their presence at. the meeting. He was pleased to hear that the rates would be about Oner-third of what they would be for so important a work. Mr Beaver seconded the motion, which was carried. On Mr Harris’ suggestion a vote of thanks was passed to the chair.