THE Kaipara Advertiser, WEDNESDAY, FEB. 28, 1912. THE BRIDGE MEETING.

Kaipara and Waitemata Echo, 28 February 1912, Page 2

THE Kaipara Advertiser, WEDNESDAY, FEB. 28, 1912. THE BRIDGE MEETING.

The meeeting of Eatepayors held la.st Thursday was, as anticipated, largely attended. Mr Stewart (Chairman of the Town Board) put the new hridge proposals to the meeting and answered numerous questions. Mr Jas. McLeod, being called on spoke against removing from the present site. Both gentlemen got a good hearing. At the conclusion the following resolution was moved " That this meeting instruct the Helensville Town Board to take no further action in the matter of shifting the site of the Swing Bridge ; and that the control of the Bridge remain with Waitemata County Council, and that the Town District contribute its half share of either renewing or repairing the present bridge as the Council may think fit/'^The Chairman ruled that the last few words. "As the Council may think fit", were foreign to the meeting, seeing the meeting was not called to consider the question of control of bridge, and the mover refusing to withdraw that part of the proposition he ruled that the motion could not be put. This caused a hub-bub amongst, those present, whereupon the Chairman closed the meeting. As the matter now stands at present it is just the same as before the meeting was called. In the first place we opine it was a mistake to ask Mr Stewart to take the office of Chairman, seeing that he was for the proposal of a new bridge on a new site, while it would have been equally a mistake to persuade Mr Jas. McLeod to the office, as his views were decidedly against a change of site. But the chairman is the presiding officer of an assembly, and has the ruling of the meeting, and although several called for a new

chairman none was forthcoming and the meeting ended without passing any opinion on the question to guide the Town Board. More's the pity. As the Waitemata County Council have been waiting for a settlement to get on with proposed work on the old bridge, of which the Board have to pay their share, and at last Friday's meeting of the Council, (we are informed) it was decided to get a Magistrates decision on the matter. It would, we | think, have been more beneficial to the district if the offending words had been withdrawn, and if the motion was carried, it would have been an indication of the feeling of the meeting. Then a poll could have • been taken instructing the ■'Board to borrow money for the repairing or rebuilding of the bridge. Repairs are urgently needed on the old bridge and would have had to be carried out even if the new bridge on the new site had been sanctioned. We hope that something will be done in the way of raising money for bridge work, for if the proposed improvement are done out of rates, a great deal will be lost by neglecting the roads and footpaths of the town. To sum up, it is well to bear in mind that the object of the meeting was to give details arid information as to the various schemes. Any resolution carried would not have made a material difference, seeing that the Town Board has the authority to call a poll when the ratepayers of Helensville would deal with the matter of sanctioning or rejecting the schemes submitted.