PATETONGA REJECTED.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 4932, 29 January 1926, Page 3

PATETONGA REJECTED.

DECISION OF PIAKO COUNTY. PROPOSED SECESSION OPPOSED. That the Patetonga, riding is not wanted by the Piako County Council was decided at the council, meeting od Monday, when a petition from about 70 Patetonga ratepayers was presented. Or. Whitechurch said there were 119 names on a roll supplied by the Hauraki Plains County Council. Since then 30 had gone to the Ngatea riding and 18 were unfinancial. All the rest, except .about four or five, were included in the petition. Cr. McLean said that the unfinancial, ratepayers should be counted, as the council had to supply roads for them as well as for other ratepayers. The Clerk: Legally .they do not count. The chairman (laughing) said that during his trip round the county with Mr Campbell (Public Works Department engineer) he asked Mr Campbell's, opinion regarding the proposed secession. Mr Campbell had said, without hesitation, that the Hauraki Plains County Council, should be able to serve Pa.tetdnga better than, the Piako county could. Cr. Lowry said that Mr Campbell’s sentimentjs should not come into the ’matter at all. They should look at it with a broad view. Was it going to affect the Piako County Council, financially 2 If- 'the inclusion of the Pa.tetonga 'riding would be detrimental to the Piako county he would vote against it, but otherwise he would support the proposal. The Piako county, he said, would gain by the inclusion of Patetonga and had nothing to. lose. Piako. had the machinery ' that would advance Patetonga. Although a,t first sight it might ''seem that the council would be giving Patetoinga an advantage, it would be to Piako’s. benefit to have that plant working. The large metal trucks had not been used to their full capacity lately, and the Patetonga loan works would be a,ble to use them. ... The Patetpnga settlers were a body of very capable men, as good as could be met anywhere. During .the past 20 years Patetonga had been always connected with the southern end of the district, and their business, would always come to MorrinsiVille .and Te Aroha. When the Maukoro bridge went) over the Pia,ko River Te Aroha would get a goodly proportion of the Patetonga trade. A lot of Patetonga’s stock dealing wap done at the Waihou saleyards. Patetonga was cut off from the Hauraki Plaints' by several miles of almost worthless, country. Cr. Hughes drew the attention* of the chairman to the fact that there was no motion before the meeting. Cr. Whitechurch seconded the motion, and said that, .although the council should accept Patetonga, the council should not fight the battle for , Patetonga with the Haura.ki Plains County Council. He had a term of three years with the Hauraki Plains County Council, and had always felt that Patetonga’s interest was, with the southern end of the district. Patetonga, he thought, did not get much benefit from the Haura.ki Plaints machinery loan. If the Piako County Council refused the Patetonga riding the matter would not be ended, as -further steps . would be taken. The methods of the Hauraki Plains County Council were very different from the Piako council’s methods, most of the Hauraki .Plains metal being shipped and dumped on the .riverbanks. Cr. Kennedy said that Cr. Lowry appeared to be concerned solely with the welfare of the Patetonga riding, and not •with his county. Cr. Lowry said that was| not bo. The first thing he referred to, he said, was - the financial aspect as .it concerned the Piako county. .Cr. Kennedy continued by saying that he could not see how Pa.tetonga would be treated much tetter than at present. The engineer’s s.taff had at present too much work, and had to have assistance. - If he had hits way 1 he would cut the Piako county in half and it would work much better than at present. It was already for too big without adding more territory. Cr. Stark remarked that on the one hand there was a unanimous, body of settlers. For the past three or four years they’ had had their eyes on Piako. Who was to be the judge? Were they to ta,ke no 'notice of 70 settlers and take an outsider’s opinion ? When the chairman was first approached on the question he had said that if the settlers were almost unanimous he was willing to vote for their inclusion. Cr. Hughes said he had not yet heard any good argument why Patetonga should come in. It wap' only a question of time, to, his mind, when Patfetcnga's interests, would lie northwards toi the proposed Paeroa-Pokeno railway. He had noticed that wherever he went all growth was towards ,the north. Only at lunch time Cr. Whitechurch had asked him if the Dairy Co. would divert some millions of feet of timber from Maukoro round Kopu and then by rail to Frankton instead of carting over the roads. Cr. Whitechurch: That’s to save the roads. Cr. Hughes,: But it cute both ways. The chairman said that they had not heard any argument in favour because he did not think there was any. The only possible benefit was that Quine’s quarry might sell metal, but this would not be sold any cheaper whether they were part of the county or s not. He admitted that he had said he would te in favour of the recession if the settlers w?re unanimous, but he placed a lot of faith in Mr Campbell’s opinion, ~and that wats what he was acting upon. He had also asked the* 1 opinion of the Ohinemuri county chairma.n, who had said ' that the Hauraki Plains County Council should be able to cater for Patetonga. Cr. Lowry asked if the chairman would be in favour of increasing the size of the county at any future time. The chairman said .that in the past ; he had objected to adding further territory towards M,atamata. He said that at one time he had thought a

small piece towards Mangaiti should have come in.

Cr. McLean thought the question was- unfair, and was binding the chairman on some future occasion. The Mangaiti portion the chairman had indicated should come into the county before Patetonga. The quelton in his mind was would it be fair to the Piako, county ratepayers, ,to bring in the Patetonga riding. The council was engaging another clerk to cope with the extra work at present.

Cr. Whitechurch said that the extra general rates from the Patetonga. riding would pay for the clerk. The chairman suggested deferring the matter for 12 months'. Cr. Lowry said that even if Piako county accepted Patetqnga the matter would not be finished with, as the'.Hauraki Plains County Council would not give permission to let Patetonga secede. The Chairman : Don’t be too sure.

Cr. Kennedy : Do you suggest that the Hauraki Plains County Council wants to get rid of them ? The Chairman: I don’t say that. He added that he got the idea when in Paeroa .that the Hauraki Plains County Council would not object to the secession. The position in a nutshell from the Patetoinga point of view was that the Hauraki Plains County Council was not treating the Patetonga settlers well, and thp Piako 'county would treat them better.

Or. Whitechurch said the position was th,at the Plajns County 'Council was not in a position to treat them very well. Cr. Stark said he valued Mr Campbelt’s opinion as much as anybody, but he would not back it in this case against 70 unanimous, settlers).

Cr. Kennedy isaid he was not effected by Mr Campbell’s opinion, and he was sorry the chairman brought Mr Campbe'H’s name into it.

When the motion to include Patetonga in the Piakb county was put to the meeting it was defeated by five votes to three, the voting being: For the motion, Crs Lowry, Stark, and Whitechurch ; against, the chairman, Crs. Kennedy, McLean, Orr and "Hughes.—Morrinsville Star.