NETHERTON RATEPAYERS

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIV, Issue 4544, 28 March 1923, Page 4

NETHERTON RATEPAYERS

MEETING OF ASSOCIATION. A meeting of the Netheiton Ratepayers’ Association was held on Saturday evening. Mr, T. Vowles presided, and Messrs D. G. McMillan, W. Madgwick, and Sutton, of Turua, were present by invitation. Before opening the meeting the president referred to the deaths ot Mr G. A. Wilson, one of the earliest members of the asspication, and his daughter, and asked the meeting to stand ami carry in silence a vote of sympathy and condolence to Mrs Wilson. PRICE OF MOTORS. Mr R. H. Heappey reported that he had attended a meeting of the Thames Valley Power Board, as. requested by the association, but with very poor results, except that he had gathered some interesting information. The Board had made a profit of £12,000 by the sale and installation of motors. . At present a motor could be procured from the Power Board’s Paeroa depot for £2l 10s, but if the motor was installed by the Power Board the cost was £3l. The manager had admitted that on every motor installed by the Board a profit of £5 was made, after allowing the full cost of wiring, etc., and making allowance for any contingency. He (Mr Heappey) did not think it fair that shareholders who dealt with the Board should provide a profit for the benefit of those who had their work done by private firms. Some members of the Board had supported him in this, and he therefore suggested that another deputation should be sent.

On being asked their opinion the members of the Turua association said the matter had not been discussed, but Mr Madgwick said that as a result of an interview with the chairman of the Board the cost of motors had been reduced from £4l 10s to £3l, and the cost of lighting from £2 10s to £2 2s 6d a point. The chairman said that he was alive to the fact that those who had not had motors installed were entitled to a reduction in the price ruling when the motors were installed. Mr Madgwick then pointed out that motors had been delivered down Huirau Road in June or July, but had only been installed a fortnight ago. Mr McMillan asked how could the Board make a reduction of £lO and be fair to their shareholders, as all motors wei;e bought at the same time. Mr J. A. Reid said that a neighbouring power board had called tenders for the supply of motors, with the result that they were obtained for £27, and were exactly the same .type of motor. Mr Heappey said that in future motors would be charged for according to the cost, and that any reduction would be passed on. Mr Johnson moved, and Mr H. Munro seconded, that a deputation should be sent, to the Power Board on the matter of the charges for motors, and that the Paeroa Chamber of Commerce and other ratepayers' associations be asked to support the deputation. The motion was carried, and Messrs R. H. Heappey and T. Vowles were appointed to represent the Netherton association. ROAD METAL. Mn Heappey said he had noted in the report of a recent county meeting that the riding member had supported a proposal to have “red rubbish” put on the roads in the riding, and he moved that a letter should be written to the council and .the riding members informing them that the ratepayers would not tolerate red metal on the roads, but good, crushed blue metal must be used. The loan had been carried on the understanding that only blue metal would be used. » The motion was seconded by Mr

Munro, who said that resolutions stating that the association demanded nothing but crushed blue metal should be put on the roads had been passed in the Netherton Hall more times than he had fingers and toes. The resolution was carried. THAMES HARBOUR SCHEME. _ Mr S. J. Laughlin, a member of the Thames Harbour Board, was asked to speak on this question, and said that as was well known he was right up against the scheme, as he did not see what benefit it would be. The proposed £60,00'0 loan was only the thin end of the wedge, and later £.170,000 or £200,000 would be required. He urged all land-holders to watch carefully, or otherwise their land would be given as bond for the loan, and if the amount of shipping at Thames did not increase the landholders would be called upon to pay rates. The Board had spent thousands already. There was at present the same depth of water in the river as the scheme provides at the Thames wharf. He asked which would be the cheapest, to land goods at Thames and bring to Netherton by boat, road, or rail, or by getting them direct by boat .to Netherton wharf. In regard to the shipment of, produce he pointed out that cool stores would be necessary at Thames and the farmers would have to pay freezing and storage charges until sufficient produce accumulated to warrant a Home vessel coming to the port. This would not be less costly than by sending straight to Auck-i land. It had been advocated, and the day would surely come, when the Home boats would only go to the principal port, and produce would have to be taken to them by small coastal boats. Thames was only 49 miles away from Auckland. Netherton was heavily rated for river improvements, but they did not ask the Thames people to help them pay. In conclusion Mr Laughlin urged that everybody do their utmost to defeat the poll.

In reply to a question by Mr Reid, Mr Laughlin said that in the boroughs all residents had a vote, but in the counties only ratepayers (if they had paid their rates). Mr Reid said that the question had been raised and answered in the Press —one man one vote, everybody alike, and a bare majority. Mr McMillan explained that on loan proposals ratepayers only had a vote, but everybody had a vote for the election of members.

Mr McMillan said he was one of the delegates sent to a meeting of those opposing the scheme held in Moriunsville recently. That meeting had unanimously decided to oppose the scheme in every form, and arrangements were made to work up opposition. Three of the members of the Harbour Board were opposed to the scheme —Mr Bruce,, of Thames, Mr Coulter, of Te Aroha, and Mr Laughlin, of Netherton. He asked why was Mr Bruce, a business man of Thames, opposed to the scheme. The £60,000 would only dredge the mud away so that the Wakatere could come in at any state of the tide. The interest on the £60,000 would have to be paid either by a charge on goods or by a rate on land. The Board talked of freezing works at Thames, yet such favourably situated works as Whakatane and Batea were going into liquidation. Mr McMillan then recounted some of the doings of the Harbour Board delegation of which those members who were opposed to the scheme had not been informed. Continuing, Mr McMillan said it was marvellous how many were ignorant of the matter and how little interest was taken by some men. SA point to be considered was that probably every man in the boroughs would vote, as the poll was on the same day as the borough elections, but there was no other issue for those in the counties, and unless interest was

aroused a great deal of apathy would be displayed. Te therefore asked the co operation of the Netherton Ratepayers’ Association when meetings were held in various places. In reply to questions Mr Laughlin said that the Harbour Board had no funds at, the end of the year, yet they said that they had sufficient revenue to pay interest on the loan. The first year’s interest and sinking fund would be paid for cut of the loan. The Board was already in debt, and had to pay interest on £5400. Mr Madgwick said that Turua opposed the scheme from a producer’s point of view, as they could not see its necessity. The Thames Valley was as well situated as any district in New Zealand. It had good rivers, a railway, and facilities at Auckland, so did not want to duplicate at Thames. The dairy companies had said that they would not send their -produce through Thames. A few months ago the N.Z. Co-operative Dairy Co. talked of sending a lot of produce to Wellington to catch an earlier boat. Would they ever send produce to Thames to wait until a boat arrived ? Tn answer to a question,. Mr Laughlin- said that the scheme had originated with the Thames Chamber of Commerce. Mr McMillan pointed out that the chairman pf the Board said that the sole reason for promoting the scheme was to get cheap manures, benzine, etc., for the farmers ; yet the farmers were whole-heartedly opposing the scheme. When the Harbour Board delegation gave this reason to some people they thought that if the scheme would benefit the farmers the latter should support it. Mr Munro moved that a letter should be sent to the clerk of ths Matamata Town Board, secretary of the opposing delegation, stating that at a meeting of the Netherton Ratepayers’ Association held on March 24 it was unanimously decided to oppose tlie Thames Harbour Board’s scheme and to take measures to secure as full a poll of ratepayers as possible in opposition to same. Seconded by Mr T. Vowles, and carried unanimously. A vote of thanks to the members of the Turua association who attended was carried by acclamation. Messrs McMillan and Madgwick responded, and invited the Netherton association to the Turua meetings. A vote of thanks to the hall committee for the free use of the Netherton Hall since the association was formed was carried by acclamation. It was decided that the secretary of the association be also the treasurer. DAIRY FARMERS’ UNION. Mr Vowles suggested that the organiser of the Dairy Farmers’ Union be asked to address a meeting at Netherton. Mr Madgwick said that be thought the Dairy Farmers’ Union had done a great deal for the good of the district. Mr H. Munro said that had the N.Z. Farmers’ Union been supported it would have done as much good for dairymen, as eleven out of thirteen on the Provincial Executive were dairy farmers. Mr Madgwick said that what the N.Z. Farmers’ Union could have done the Dairy Farmers’ Union had done without being asked. REFRESHMENTS. Mr Laughlin said that many had to I come a long way to. attend meetings, and suggested that some refreshments should be provided. After much discussion it was decidj ed that refrshments be provided at I the next meeting.