PIPIROA BRIDGE.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVI, Issue 4873, 4 September 1925, Page 3

PIPIROA BRIDGE.

• — t — DEFINING THE RATING AREA. DIFFICULTIES TO BE OVERCOME. At the last meeting of the Hauraki Plains County Council a committee, comprising Crs. Miller, Par.tfit, and Harris, was set up to define a rating area for the proposed bridge over the Piako River at Piiproa. A recommendation will be brought down at the next meeting of .the council. The fact that the council has authorised the defining .of the rating area indicates that it has decided that the bridge should be built, an® the cost to be borne by a special area as distinct from the whole of the county. This aspect will probably be) discussed again, despite the difficulties- th defining the special rating area, A little reflection will show the magnitude of these difficulties. Prior to the formation of the Hauraki plains County special rating areas for bridges had been defined, and it cannot be claimed that success was- attained. Land was included which, in the light of developments, must be admitted should not have been included. The rating area for the Waihou (Puke) brideg extends from within a couple of miles of Turua and a mile or so of Ngatea to the unsettled land in the ponding area opposite Patetonga. The Orchard (Ngatea) bridge area includes land five miles from the bridge and within a couple of miles of the proposed Pipiroa bridge, but excludes land east of the Kerepeehi-Kopuarahi road and within two miles of Ngatea. Land on the Hopai road was excluded because the settlers were opposed to the bridge and would have voted against the loan, but other land on the same road was included in the area.

Now that other bridges are contemplated, and rating areas have to be defined, the problem is to find an area that will derive benefit and should rightly be included but which is not already in a rating area. To double-rate would be an injustice to be avoided if possible.. The difficulty of the position is apparent when the case of the proposed bridge at Ngarua is considered. The land at both bridge-heads is already rated for a bridge. .

A proposal to make all bridges a charge on the whole county was put to a poll of ratepayers a short time ago, but it was soundly defeated be*: cause most of the voters were of the opinion that hy turning it down, the proposed bridges at Maukoro, and Pipiroa, and possibly Kirikii'i, would be quashed. The rate for, all the bridges proposed over the whole county would have been about l-3d in the £. The turning down of that poll did not stop either the Kirikiri or the Maukoro bridge being authorised, but it did prevent the authorisation of the Pipiroa. bridge as the loan, for it could not be raised without the sanction of the ratepayers, and it was obvious that this would not be obtained if the area was the whole county. The pbsjnow is that if the bridge, is to be built it must be paid for by a special rating area, and, ajs before stated, the difficulty is to define a rating area.

Supporters of the bridge advocate making the area all the northern portion of the county not already included in any bridge rating area, except, of course, the bridges which are a charge over the whole county. No land will be in two. ..special rating aresa, and practically all, if not all, '.the county will be paying one special bridge rate and one rate for the coun•ty bridges. Thus, as near as possible, the, bridges will be county matters, Over the area proposed for the Pipiroa bridge the rate will be in the neighbourhood of l-sd, the same amount as the Ngatea bridge rate. Opposition to the area there probably will be, but there is no doubt tnat the proposal has its merits.