FLORA STREET?

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVI, Issue 4866, 17 August 1925, Page 3

FLORA STREET?

UNCOMPLIMENTARY RATEPAYER. COMPLAINT- AND ALLEGATIONS. The following lengthy letter from a ratepayer resident in Flora Street came before the Paeroa Borough Council at its meeting on Thursday night:— . • “As a resident of Flora Street 1 would like tb place on record my protest against its continued and gross neglect. This is one of the oldest streets in Paeroa, having residents of long and continuity of from 16 to 20 years. A steady and ratepaying community, who have seen new streets, made and opened in- all directions. They have seen these same new streets—some of them containing but two or three houses of recent erection—metalled or bituminised and given good and shingled paths.

"To-day? Flora Street is as it was in the beginning. Progress has parsed it by, deliberately, persistently. In wet weather a sea of mud, at all times its paths unrecognisable from its drains. Our own particular drains have not been opened for five or six years, and are a spreading, sqelching quagmire of filth. Brambles, rushes, and weeds emphasise itis dreary aspect of neglect and decay.

"No fairminded inidvidual visiting this area could truthfully maintain that Flora Street has had a square deal. Private appeals, requests, and petitions to the Council have been met with evasion, indifference, and inadequate excuses. It has been said there is no use for Flora Street. This is a somewhat peculiar statement. Of what use are half the streets' in Paeroa except as' thoroughfares for their residents? Flora Street is a byword among the tradespeople. Any motor-car or lorry venturing into its sticky precincts in bad wcatnei is immediately clutched and held in its miry maw. The air is vibrant with the throb of powerful machinery—and the equally powerful imprecations of the unlucky drivers.

"You will say, ‘We have Dulcie Street, lately bituminised.’ True. If Dulcie Street went townwarils it would be of great benefit to Flora Street: but who, logically speaking, wants to.go backwards about a quarter of a mile when their destination is forward? Flora Street. residents never .asked for Dulcie Street. Flora Street is their natural exit, and is needed more, than! ever now, when cut off from the line path.

“It' lias been stated in answer to one most natural request Tor a path down to the Puke (in the old days the County Council looked after this) that it would be improving somebody's property. 1 This, agian, is -surely a peculiar and inefficient reason. Where is the road or path that doesn’t improve somebody’s property in the borough, and where is the road or’path that doesn’t entail the (spending of ratepayers’ money? We arc all ratepayers. The point is this : a street consisting of eight houses—having 25 residetns —cannot get a decent path or exit to the main road. If desirous of proceeding through Dulcie Street the majority of the residents have to wade ankle-deep in mud to get there, unless they perform a series of kanga-roo-like hops which, however diverting as a spectacle, is hardly the form of activity likely to appeal to elderly women. I mention elderly, women because there arc four widows in the street. -

“According to the latest estimate!? for the improvement of roads Flora Street is to benefit somewhat; but not enough. Surely after 20 years of neglect there is a fairly large sum justly due to the credit of Flora Street! If only another chain or two of metal were added to the present scheme, giving equal facilities to every, residence, for its tradespeople, its paths cleaned and shingled, its draiiifs opened and cleaned —if only these tilings were done they would go far to remove the rancour and resentment in the minds—and justly so —of its residents. It is the policy of the Borough Council to act fairly by all, and I would say in conclusion that I hope this letter will be received in the spirit in which it is written, and that in the near future the unfortunate and long-suffering residents of Flora Street may have hopes of receiving in some degree a fairer and squarer deal.” ■ Cr. Flatt said that the writer had seht the letter in good faith, althougn perhaps the facts were not quite correct. He thought that the letter did more good than way-laying a councillor on the street and talking over the grievance. He moved that the letter be received and a reply sent to the effect that the road would receive attention as soon as funds permitted. Seconded by Cr. Silcock, who suggested that a good outlet would be provided through Hill Street to the railway line. Cr. Edwards favoured the footpath in upper Flora Street receiving immediate attention. He was of the opinion that the residents had reason to complain.

Cr. de Castro said that the writer possibly had a grievance, but he agreed with the Mayor that the letter was hardly couched in complimentary terms, and was one which was a reflection on the administraof former councils.

The Mayor said that the council had definitely provided for improvements in that street, and lie did not think the letter should be received, couched in the language it was. Cr. Brenan said that the statements in the letter were not correct, and instanced occasions when the former councils had expended money on the street equal to the rates collected. He wished to emphatically deny that he had advocated bituminous streets, and said that so far as Willoughby, Russel, King, and Dulcie streets were concerned the records would show that lie had consistently voted against laying them down in bitumen. The speaker said he thought the writer had been carried away in her writing. There w T as no doubt that the area required attention, and the council was doing its best to give relief. The resolution was carried.