COUNTY MATTERS.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4479, 13 October 1922, Page 2

COUNTY MATTERS.

Sir, —Speaking on the bridge question at. Waitakaruru on Wednesday Cr. McLoughlin remarked that the two gentlemen .who headed the deputation for Puriri bridge were now up against fiirikiri bridge, and that i.t was only out pf spite because theydid not get their bridge. Now, Sir, I, being one of those twp gentlemen referred to, will admit that I did feel rather disgusted at the attitude adopted by the Hauraki Plains Council in this matter." I would like to ppint out the one outstanding virtue that the Puriri scheme possessed and that which the Kirikiri lacks, apd that is the sanction pf the ratepayers.

Regarding Cr. McLoughlin’s charge of petty spite governing pur subsequent actions, .we can only treat that statement with the contempt it deserves.

Cr. Parfitt recently stated at Turua that “any council elected in the future must, if they are honourable men, carry out the policy adopted by this council in regard to the bridges.” This seems rather a remarkable statement coming from a gentleman whose maiden speech in council, if correctly reported, reads like this: "If we are going on with Kirikiri, we must smash Puriri; it is in the wrong place.” Surely there is, t a vast discrepancy between, what that /gentleman practised two'years ago and what he is preaching to-day. Cr. Harris again proclaimed what a "wonderful bargain” they have made in regard to Kirikiri bridge. We have heard quite a lot about this bargain, but, judging from some of the previous deals made by our council, we ratepayers are beginning to wonder where some of these “bargains” are going to land For instance, we have the Hikuatia quarry purchase—quite a "bargain.” Then there are the punts, which are not helpful. Another “bargain” is the motor roller, costing £2700', plus- interest an'd £25 demurrage at railway bought three years too soon at the very least. In fact of these “bargains” oup Council has the nerve’ to adopt a bridging policy estimated (by whom we are not clear) to cost in the vicinity of £50,000, without giving the ratepayers the opportunity pf deciding .whether they want it or not.

> I can assure you, Mn Editor, that it is not spite that turns us against the actions of our councillors, but fright—pur.e fright. There are two factors, only too clear to the ratepayers, but evidently quite overlooked by the Council, and they are hard times and soft roads. Sb the sooner they realise’the postion the better for all concerned. Cr. Parfitt stated at Waitakaruru that the estimates for the bridges were made out on. the highest prices. Was h,e quietly throwing dust in the eyes of those ratepayers, or were we misinformed by the councillors at Turua when they stated that no estimates had been prepared for any bridge excepting Kirikiri? In the meantime we have the county clerk calmly and deliberately giving us detailed figures concerning each and every bridge. In conclusion, Sir, I should like to point out that the ratepayers Of Turua and Netherton ridings have only asked for that which is undoubtedly their right; that is for a poll to be taken op this matter. The Hauraki Plains Council has seen fit to refuse this, and therefore we have adopted the only other method left us, ing to grin and bear it, and that is to have the matter settled on the floor of the House of Parliament, per medium of a petition. W. MADGWICK. Turua.