THE KAIPARA BRIDGE QUESTION.

Kaipara and Waitemata Echo, 5 April 1917, Page 3

THE KAIPARA BRIDGE QUESTION.

PAY UP AND LOOK PLEASANT. The ratepayers of the . town district of Helensville were called upon by the Town Board to finally decide the long-standing question as to whether the Board should pay half-cost for erecting the new bridge, or contest the claim of the Waitemata County Council. The meeting took place on Friday evening last, 29th ult., in-Stewart's Hall, when there was a fair attendance of ratepayers. Mr Jas. Lambert (Chairman of the Town Board) occupied the chair, and briefly explained the object of the meeting, saying that the bridge had caused a lot of discussion, until it was finally decided to put the matter before a public meeting.

The Chairman then read a whole batch of minutes that have been carried at the Board's meetings from the year 1911, which clearly showed that they were agreeable to stand a share only of the expense in the erection of the bridge, which was to have cost £2270. He said the ratepayers had no right to be responsible for the half cost of the biidge. The County Council should take over the .control. The County used it more than the townspeople, especially in the heavy traffic line, and the County's revenue was £1500, against the Town Board's revenue of £300. But in the face of things, at their last meeting, he voted that they should pay the half instead of contesting the matter,

. He then read a lengthy letter from the Board's solicitor (Mr Ziman), which concluded that the Board was really responsible for the amount claimed.

The Chairman said he thought it would be foolish to contest the claim in the face of the advice contained in this letter,

By way of a diversion the question cropped up as to who constituted a ratepayer, with power to vote at the meeting.

Mr Spinley thought it would be a good idea for some of the members of the Board to give their opinion on the question at issue.

Mr Jas. McLeod (an old member of the Board) said he thought that they were committed for the payment of their share of the expense, and that by paying the half cost they would be only doing the fair thing.

Mr' Jas. Stewart said he had been on the Town Board for the past six years. The Waitemata County Council erected the bridge, and if that body demanded £1400, it would mean at least £100 a year spec: al rate. Helensville should not have to pay half the cost of the erection of the bridge. Outsiders used it to a very large extent. As the matter stood, they were asked whether they were going to pay half, or whether a Commission was tc be set up.

Mr Aitkenhead said that, as a Councillor, he would like to ex~ plain the position The bridge was an ornament to the township and he did not know what the people would do without it. Why; it was the only ornament they had, and was fully worth the money. He advocated paying up.

Mr H. Graham said he would support Mr Stewart's contention, and see whether they should pay the half.

Mr H. Thompson said he thought the Board should only pay their fair share towards the cost of the bridge.

Mr I. Hughes wanted to know what had become of all the material from, the old bridge, and whether the Board. had committed itself to pay the half share.

Mi- Jas. l^cLeqd said' he had had a good deai tq do with the bridge, and_ he was very proud of the fact. It was some ten years ago th,at th,e Town Board agreed to QQn.trih.iite half towards the upkeep of the ojd bridge. What was the difference between the ,up-keep and construction. He was the means of getting a Commission^set up, and he had evidence to prove that the Board should pay half, and the Waitemata Council be the controlling body. It took two years to get a Governor's warrant for the erection of the bridge. Did not the business people of Helensville get a fair share of patronage from the other side of the'bridge ?. The Town Board took a very active part in the inspecting of the mixing of the concrete, for thje piles, and it was the'liown Board who granted the" old' timber, for the Shelly ' Beach' wharf. He thought that by asking the ratepayers' opinion on/ the 'question th.c Town Board only wanted to

shuffle out of the responsibility. When he was Chairman he took full responsibility of whatever was passed. He explained the position with regard to taking the earth from Porter's Crescent for the approaches of the bridge. No one could deny that the material was of the best, as it has stood the test. If the Town Board only want to contribute one-third of the amount, why should they want to be the controlling body. It was not on a main trunk road, therefore they were getting the benefit of the bridge. A lengthy discussion ensued about the material used for the approaches to the bridge, and finally Mr Elliott got up, saying they had no right to bring in °utside subjects at this meeting. Let them keep to the point, and .pay their share. Finally Mr Coutts proposed— That the Helensville Town Board pay the half-share towards the expenses of the construction of the bridge. He added that they should look pleasant over the matter. The motion was seconded by Mr H. Coulter and carried. Mr C. Sandin said he would like to know the feelings of those present, and if they had any confidence in the members of the Town Board. There was no reply, and the meeting dispersed.