OHURA ROAD GRANTS.

King Country Chronicle, Volume VI, Issue 453, 3 April 1912, Page 5

OHURA ROAD GRANTS.

DEPARTMENT AND COUNCIL. A MUCH DEBATED WORK. The drawbacks attendant upon the red tape system of administering Government road grants in certain districts is exemplified in connection with the situation created at Ohura in respect to the Mangakara road. The road referred to has become famous in the annals of Ohura by reason of the fact that in endeavouring to give effect to the desires of the settlers moat affected by the work the council clashed with the Puolic Works Department. Subsequently in endeavouring to give effect to the wishes of the department, which held the purse strings, the council clashed seriously with the settler and with some of the council members. Three of the councillors resigned and were subsequently re-elected. A further development occurred at the last council meeting when a letter was read from the department intimating that in view of the representations made by settlers the method of utilising the money originally proposed by the council would be adopted. The story is rather complicated and to a person unacquainted with departmentalism somewhat bewildering. It appears Mangakara road requires a great deal of work done on it in order to make it fit for traffic. It has to be widened and culverts and bridges are also necessary. A grant was made for widening and putting in small bridges and culverts, £7OO to be devoted to widening and £l5O to bridging and culverting. In the opinion of the majority of the settlers the most important work was a bridge over the stream and the council had plans prepared for a bridge and submitted for approval to the department. Ratification of the bridge proposal was refused by the department, attention being drawn to the fact that the .vote was chiefly for widening. In pursuance of this decision the council, after a heated debate carried a motion in favour of proceeding with the work in terms of the department's communication. Plans were accordingly prepared for the widening and tenders called for the work. In the meantime the settlers had evidently been pulling the wires to Wellington on their own behalf, with the result that the department intimated that the bridging scheme would be adopted. The chairman of the council (Mr G. Loveday), in referring to. the matter, said the incident was most regrettable and the council was placed between two fires. This was against the best interests vf local government, and if such contradictory instructions were going to be issued by the department, the council would never know where it stood. Continuing, the chairman said it had been rumoured that he had used his personal influence to get the money diverted from the bridge. He would state once and for all that neither by writing or verbally had he attempted such a ching. He was prepared to resign if it could be shown he had done so. He proposed that the council should refuse to administer the vote which should be left with the department to deal with as it thought fit. Considerable discussion ensued during which heat was shown by several councillors, and an amendment was proposed that the bridge work be let forthwith by contract. On the vote being taken a tie was recorded, and the original motion was carried on the casting vote of the chairman.