SEALING NO. 60 HIGHWAY.

Manawatu Times, Volume 62, Issue 37, 13 February 1937, Page 4

SEALING NO. 60 HIGHWAY.

MAXERPA-TOKOMARU SECTION.

■ LEVIN, Last Night. Emphatic protest against the de cision of the Main Highways Board to ask for. a contribution of one-quarter of the cost of sealing and metalling the Levin-Palmerston North via Shannon main highway between Makerua and Tokomaru was recorded by the Horowhenua County Council in the course of its monthly meeting this morning. A letter was received from the District Engineer of the Publie Works Department, who stated that the Main Highways Board had decided to carry out free of cost the formation part of any reconstruction on the Kairanga County section of the Levin-Palmerston North via Shannon Main Highway under the Kairanga and Horowhenua County divisions, under the condition that the County Council contributes one-quarter of the cost of metalling and sealing. It was to be understood, however, that any bridging required was to be financed on the usual basis of a£2 for £1 highways subsidy. The same conditions would apply to the Horowhenua County as regardb reconstruction, sealing and bridging of its section between Makerua and the Kairanga County boundary, Cr. C. P«, Jensen v immediately commented that in view of the work which the Council had already performed on the No. 60 highway this request from the Board was most unfair. ‘‘lt has always been felt that we in this district have done our fair share in highway construction,” said the chairman, Mr. G. A. Monk, “aiid a genuine request should be made from this Council that the Highways Board should take the-, responsibility and complete and seal the section between Makerua and Tokomaru. We are left to-day loaded with debt,” he continued, “and are now told that wo aro expected to .find one-quarter of the cost of sealing. It is time to protest and ask the Board to wholly complete this sec tion.” Cr. A. J. Gimblett expressed the view that when it was realised that a nugi; loan had been raised—and spent—in road construction it was evident that the Horowhenua County Council had done its share. Over six years ago the Council had made a definite request to the Board that this work be completed. It was most unfair to now send a circular letter such as this to the Council and thus place it on a level footing with other bodies which had not done so much in this respect. Cr. Jensen put forward a suggestion that the Board should be asked to take over three-quarters of the Council’s loan responsibility in respect to the highway. The chairman said that tho Board was granting a huge expenditure on the No. 1 highway just outsido the Horowhenua boundary, and in view of this, to ask this Council to contribute 35 per cent, to the cost of completing No. 60 seemed extremely mean. “Ours is a different case from others, and if this treatment is to be given to others ,at. our very back door, why such mean-and petty treatment to us?” he asked. Upon his motion, seconded by Cr. Gimblett, it was decided to protest emphatically against tho request for si ha contribution, and that the Boar:] be asked to complete the work of metal ling and sealing the road, and also the required bridging, themselves.